# Chinese electromagnetic launcher (railgun, coilgun .etc) informational pool



## clarkgap

This thread is intended to collect all information about rthe developement of Chinese electromagnetic launcher (EML) from reliable sources (Journal, conference publication, lecture by real expert, scientific award .etc).

I realized that many members overestimate the technological level of Chinese EML, and some members underestimate that. I hope this thread can provide some reliable and objective information about Chinese EML.

https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc686699/m2/1/high_res_d/45558.pdf
https://wenku.baidu.com/view/e13a06fa9b6648d7c0c7468d.html
303EMG: a railgun prototype tested in 1988. A 25 x 25 mm square bore railgun launched a 30.2g projectile at 3.2 km/s.
503 round bore railgun: A 25 mm diameter round bore railguns launched a 100g projectile at 3+ km/s.

The International Symposium on Electromagnetic Launch Technology (EML) is a great information sources.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=6325011
Dr. Jun Li, president of Electromagnetic Launch Technology Committee of China’s Electrotechnical Society. He got the 2012 Peter Mark Medal for Outstanding Contribution to Electromagnetic Launch Technology for his work on a 10 MJ railgun prototype. The journal about design and testing the 10 MJ railgun was publicated on IEEE in 2011.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/5740615/

In 2017 18th EML, a Chinese journal told about a Modular Pulsed Alternator Power System for Driving a 32-MJ Railgun, which can 10.3 kg projectile to 2.5 km/s.
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7938410/



In order to help people understand the technological level of Chinese EML experiments. This page is about foreign EML experiments.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/for-love-of-a-gun
R. A. Marshall and his colleagues at the Australian National University (ANU) tested an experimental EML launched a 3 g prjectile at 5.9 km/s in 1977.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.906.6034&rep=rep1&type=pdf
publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/download/4179/2439
India DRDO tested a 12 mm square bore railgun in 1990s? The railgun launched a 3 g projectile at 2.08 km/s.

https://intalek.com/Index/News/railgun.pdf
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/30869/PR_150.pdf?sequence=1
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/22582/
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1061787/
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a209550.pdf
Westinghouse Electric Corp use EML launched a 100 g preojectile at 4.2 km/s in a demonstration experiment in 1982.
Maxwell Laboratories Inc conducted a railgun (CHECMATE) and launched 100-350 g projectiles at 1-3 km/s in 1986-88.
US DARPA tested two 90 mm railguns which could launched a projectile weighting several kilograms at 2-2.5 km/s in 1990s. The 9 MJ railgun at University of Texas at Austin (CEM-UT) launched a 2.44 kg projectile at 2.577 km/s in February 1990 (8.1 MJ), and a 4.49 kg projectile at 1.325 km/s in 1991 (3.9 MJ).

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/911871/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.04973.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4033100/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.04143.pdf
French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis tested a 10-MJ railgun (Pegasus) with 40 mm square bore and 50 mm round bore in 1998. The railgun launched 300-650 g projectiles at 2.3-2.5 km/s in early experiment. Then it launched a 2 kg projectile at 2.1 km/s (9.45 MJ) in the later experiment.

Waiting for edit...

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## clarkgap

In order to help people understand the technological level of Chinese EML experiments. This page is about foreign EML experiments.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/consumer-electronics/gadgets/for-love-of-a-gun
R. A. Marshall and his colleagues at the Australian National University (ANU) tested an experimental EML launched a 3 g prjectile at 5.9 km/s in 1977.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.906.6034&rep=rep1&type=pdf
publications.drdo.gov.in/ojs/index.php/dsj/article/download/4179/2439
India DRDO tested a 12 mm square bore railgun in 1990s? The railgun launched a 3 g projectile at 2.08 km/s.

https://intalek.com/Index/News/railgun.pdf
https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/30869/PR_150.pdf?sequence=1
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/22582/
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1061787/
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a209550.pdf
Westinghouse Electric Corp use EML launched a 100 g preojectile at 4.2 km/s in a demonstration experiment in 1982.
Maxwell Laboratories Inc conducted a railgun (CHECMATE) and launched 100-350 g projectiles at 1-3 km/s in 1986-88.
US DARPA tested two 90 mm railguns which could launched a projectile weighting several kilograms at 2-2.5 km/s in 1990s. The 9 MJ railgun at University of Texas at Austin (CEM-UT) launched a 2.44 kg projectile at 2.577 km/s in February 1990 (8.1 MJ), and a 4.49 kg projectile at 1.325 km/s in 1991 (3.9 MJ).

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/911871/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1602.04973.pdf
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4033100/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.04143.pdf
French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis tested a 10-MJ railgun (Pegasus) with 40 mm square bore and 50 mm round bore in 1998. The railgun launched 300-650 g projectiles at 2.3-2.5 km/s in early experiment. Then it launched a 2 kg projectile at 2.1 km/s (9.45 MJ) in the later experiment.

Waiting for edit...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

axisofevil said:


> LMAO as soon as India news picked up on an achievement our R&D did, you guys couldn't resist.



No. I just found some old thread about EML. Many member overestimated the technological level of China on that. I want to provide correct information.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## faithfulguy

clarkgap said:


> No. I just found some old thread about EML. Many member overestimated the technological level of China on that. I want to provide correct information.



I was thinking that an Indian will bring up the fact that it tested a rail gun the last couple of days. China achieved that in 1988. But of course, Indians will assert that you bring up this fact to embarrass them.

This is because to Indians, what China did in 1988 or any time in its history are all about Indians. US dealt more with Indians in our history. They are now mostly in reservations.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## clarkgap

faithfulguy said:


> I was thinking that an Indian will bring up the fact that it tested a rail gun the last couple of days. China achieved that in 1988. But of course, Indians will assert that you bring up this fact to embarrass them.
> 
> This is because to Indians, what China did in 1988 or any time in its history are all about Indians. US dealt more with Indians in our history. They are now mostly in reservations.



China and India are both developing countries. Our scientists doing great. But we has just overtake European in this field, still a long distance with US.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## axisofevil

faithfulguy said:


> I was thinking that an Indian will bring up the fact that it tested a rail gun the last couple of days. China achieved that in 1988. But of course, Indians will assert that you bring up this fact to embarrass them.
> 
> This is because to Indians, what China did in 1988 or any time in its history are all about Indians. US dealt more with Indians in our history. They are now mostly in reservations.





India achieved a prototype in 1986


----------



## 21stCentury

axisofevil said:


> India achieved a prototype in 1986



its 2017 now, where are the results of this Indian prototype over 3 decades ago?

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## faithfulguy

axisofevil said:


> India achieved a prototype in 1986



So did India waited another 30+ years to come up with another prototype?

No wonder with LCA's long development time, it'd still a success by Indian standard.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## clarkgap

axisofevil said:


> India achieved a prototype in 1986



I think you are talking about the railgun that I posted on #2. However, I did not find the credible source about the date of the experiment. May you help me?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## lonelyman

axisofevil said:


> LMAO as soon as India news picked up on an achievement our R&D did, you guys couldn't resist.



Please don't put India and China in the same sentence, we are way out of your league and frankly it's very embarrassing your media constantly compare china to India. 

We don't want to be associated with India

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Figaro

clarkgap said:


> I think you are talking about the railgun that I posted on #2. However, I did not find the credible source about the date of the experiment. May you help me?


I think he is more than likely referring to a failed prototype ...


----------



## Akasa

MULUBJA said:


> Soon as Indian rail gun test news arrive, this thread was started. Typical inferiority complex of chinese.



These rail gun tests have been reported since 2012.


----------



## clarkgap

MULUBJA said:


> Soon as Indian rail gun test news arrive, this thread was started. Typical inferiority complex of chinese.



Process:
1. I found a thread about DRDO successfully tested a railgun prototype. I read it, think it is not bad, then leave it.
2. I found another thread about it in next day. There were some members saw the principle prototype as a military one. I told them there is still a long distance between this and a military railgun.
3. Some one asked me to provide reliable evidences to prove that many countries (include india) had done such experiment in last century.
4. I finally found the sources. During the look-up, I read some old thread about Chinese EML in Chinese defence forum. Then I realized that some members were influenced by the hyperbole from media and overestimate the technological level of Chinese EML.
5. I posted this thread in order to avoid these members make same mistake in further.



MULUBJA said:


> Soon as Indian rail gun test news arrive, this thread was started. Typical inferiority complex of chinese.



May be I posted too much link. The part about foreign EML development is bloked and awaiting moderator approval. So you cannot see it. I use this part to show that Chinese EML is not as good as the hyperbole.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Guys ... can we try to leave out India?

it is irrelevant.

Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## beliserius1

clarkgap said:


> The journal about design and testing the 10 MJ railgun was publicated on IEEE in 2011.


I'd like to ask if this is a 10MJ railgun or a 10MJ facility.



> Dr. Li was responsible for designing the 10 MJ electromagnetic launch facility



The latter, given the implication of >30% efficiency, would make this a >3MJ Railgun.


----------



## clarkgap

beliserius1 said:


> I'd like to ask if this is a 10MJ railgun or a 10MJ facility.
> 
> 
> 
> The latter, given the implication of >30% efficiency, would make this a >3MJ Railgun.



It is a 10 MJ railgun. The efficiency of the French-german 10 MJ railgun is also 30%.



Deino said:


> Guys ... can we try to leave out India?
> 
> it is irrelevant.
> 
> Deino



Hi, Deino. May I keep edit the #1 and #2 in future? I have more information and source for that.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

MULUBJA said:


> Soon as Indian rail gun test news arrive, this thread was started. Typical inferiority complex of chinese.


What exactly is your point? India may have had a prototype decades ago ... yes, that may be true. But a prototype will always remain a prototype ... I have not seen one application of such railgun currently in the Indian military. Nor have I seen extensive research into railgun tech conducted by India in recent years. This reminds me of how the Indians boast of their *future* nuclear propulsion or *future* electromagnetic catapults. Unfortunately for India, there is little if any substance to such ridiculous claims. It seems as if India tries harder to compare itself to China than actually progressing on their indigenous industry.



lonelyman said:


> Please don't put India and China in the same sentence, we are way out of your league and frankly it's very embarrassing your media constantly compare china to India.
> 
> We don't want to be associated with India


Unfortunately Indians have the incessant need to compare themselves to China, especially in military. But the glass ceiling just gets higher and higher for them every year ... they will get tired at some point.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> Guys ... can we try to leave out India?
> 
> it is irrelevant.
> 
> Deino



Looks like #2 was blocked again after I added a new link on it. So I have to post new reply if I want to add something.


----------



## Deino

clarkgap said:


> Looks like #2 was blocked again after I added a new link on it. So I have to post new reply if I want to add something.



Actually i don't know why this thread again was "closed" for moderation ... ?


----------



## clarkgap

Deino said:


> Actually i don't know why this thread again was "closed" for moderation ... ?



I think I edit #1 and #2 too many times.


----------



## cirr

关于国内电磁炮，属于国内十二五、十三五重点科研项目，目前就有不少于5家的科研院校和机构在搞攻关研究，都有自己的实验系统，目前技术水平略高于美国NRL、IAT和法国ISL的系统

202所已经有人提出要搞电磁迫击炮，方案中射程比传统自行迫击炮射程增加30%以上，携弹量增加3至4倍，据称，技术上已经基本没有什么问题，

装工院提出的全电战车方案，采用综合电力系统，动力驱动、火力系统及防护均为电力（电机驱动、电炮和电装甲），动力驱动系统体积仅为传统动力驱动的40%，火力系统为多功能型（直瞄反装甲、间瞄火力压制和防空反导），射程要求达到10公里，防护系统要求能抵御住国产125毫米炮贫铀穿甲弹在2000米的射击（穿深1050mm均质钢水平）

再扯一句，某高校某院士研发的某口径多功能火炮，技术思路是对的，但还属于传统火炮的挖潜，有诸多局限，其实用化战术技术价值有望在电炮上实现（某校的徒子徒孙们如有冒犯请轻拍）


----------



## clarkgap

cirr said:


> 关于国内电磁炮，属于国内十二五、十三五重点科研项目，目前就有不少于5家的科研院校和机构在搞攻关研究，都有自己的实验系统，目前技术水平略高于美国NRL、IAT和法国ISL的系统
> 
> 202所已经有人提出要搞电磁迫击炮，方案中射程比传统自行迫击炮射程增加30%以上，携弹量增加3至4倍，据称，技术上已经基本没有什么问题，
> 
> 装工院提出的全电战车方案，采用综合电力系统，动力驱动、火力系统及防护均为电力（电机驱动、电炮和电装甲），动力驱动系统体积仅为传统动力驱动的40%，火力系统为多功能型（直瞄反装甲、间瞄火力压制和防空反导），射程要求达到10公里，防护系统要求能抵御住国产125毫米炮贫铀穿甲弹在2000米的射击（穿深1050mm均质钢水平）
> 
> 再扯一句，某高校某院士研发的某口径多功能火炮，技术思路是对的，但还属于传统火炮的挖潜，有诸多局限，其实用化战术技术价值有望在电炮上实现（某校的徒子徒孙们如有冒犯请轻拍）



https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/bitstream/handle/2152/30869/PR_150.pdf?sequence=1
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6325173/
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1612.04143.pdf
IAF is an institution of Texas University in Austin. They established the 10 MJ railgun facility (90mm) in 1990. NRL established the 10 MJ facility (more advance with smaller caliber) in 2006. These two institutions do not have the best railgun prototypes in US. ISL (German-French Research Institute of Saint-Louis) own the best railgun facility in Europe. But they did not build any new prototype after eastablished a 10 MJ railgun system (Pegasus) in 2000.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

beliserius1 said:


> I'd like to ask if this is a 10MJ railgun or a 10MJ facility.
> 
> 
> 
> The latter, given the implication of >30% efficiency, would make this a >3MJ Railgun.



Sorry, I made a mistake. I read the journals about Eurpean ISL Pegasus railgun again. It is a 10 MJ facility like Chinese one, not a 10 MJ railgun. Also the Chinese 32 MJ program is just updating the facility to 32 MJ.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## clarkgap

cirr said:


>



In my memory, it is a old US railgun prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


>



Debunked. It's an American railgun prototype developed & built by Powerlabs.

https://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun.htm


----------



## clarkgap

> Debunked. It's an American railgun prototype developed & built by Powerlabs.
> 
> https://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun.htm



No, it is not. I remember I found it from an IEEE journal. Sam barro just referenced it and built a small prototype.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Zsari



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Cybernetics

21m long

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## terranMarine

SinoSoldier said:


> Debunked. It's an American railgun prototype developed & built by Powerlabs.
> 
> https://science.howstuffworks.com/rail-gun.htm



erhm, you were saying? 



Cybernetics said:


> 21m long
> View attachment 451032

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

terranMarine said:


> erhm, you were saying?



That is really an American prototype, not like this. I saw it in an IEEE journal.


----------



## terranMarine

clarkgap said:


> That is really an American prototype, not like this. I saw it in an IEEE journal.



I know it's American, but he doesn't believe China was developing or at an advanced stage in this railgun tech

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Sommer

View attachment 451047







Link 1: Is This Chinese Navy Ship Equipped With An Experimental Electromagnetic Railgun?
http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...-with-an-experimental-electromagnetic-railgun

Link 2: Experimental Chinese Rail Gun aboard a Landing Craft...
http://www.snafu-solomon.com/2018/01/experimental-chinese-rail-gun-aboard.html

Copyright see photos watermark.
BTW, there is also a saying that, this is a new chinese 155mm artillery for landing support.(Which I hope not...)

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## IblinI

It is indeed the naval railgun.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## mkiyani

wish Pakistan also do some RD on this as soon as possible ..


----------



## Han Patriot

terranMarine said:


> you give off that vibe, it's a natural reflex of yours


The Yindu scent, you can smell it from miles away.

Reactions: Negative Rating Negative Rating:
1 | Like Like:
8


----------



## Deino

*Guys ... can You please calm down again? No insults, no country bashing. 

The one image in question (https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/chin...nformational-pool.527739/page-2#post-10066770) is an US-rail-gun, there's nothing to debate and this one shown yesterday a Chinese one. Period.

Every other additional off-topic post is ranting and trolling.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## python-000

*Congratulation CHINA for this Great Achievement*....

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

via @cirr 's post in the other thread

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nika



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Mitho1980

Why no secrecy?


----------



## aimarraul

Mitho1980 said:


> Why no secrecy?


no need for secrecy when it's ahead of the curve


----------



## conworldus

nika's picture is of much better quality than the one above! Thank you. This is DEFINITELY a rail gun, instead of a large conventional gun some have speculated. The thicken base of the barrel probably contains electric coil. My only thought is that, this gun is going to require so much electricity, so for actual deployment instead of testing, would you need a type 055 size ship with all electric propulsion just to power it? Smaller ship may not have enough electricity, unless a smaller and more energy efficient version can be developed.

In any case, what a great advancement.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Mitho1980 said:


> Why no secrecy?


How to keep it secret when it needs to go open sea and test it?

Plus Wuhan shipyard has many civilian ships. It just like asking why no secrecy for China first domestic build aircraft carrier?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## monitor

* Asia Pacific *
*Photos suggest China is prepping to test a electromagnetic railgun at sea*
By: Mike Yeo   1 hour ago




*One of two electromagnetic railgun prototypes on display aboard joint high speed vessel USS Millinocket (JHSV 3) in port at Naval Base San Diego. Along with the U.S., China has been among the countries advancing the technologies, with recent photos suggesting China is prepping to test a electromagnetic railgun at sea. (U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Kristopher Kirsop)*
MELBOURNE, Australia — Images published online appear to suggest China has mounted what looks to be a prototype electromagnetic railgun on a ship, and started trials with the possibility of testing it at sea in the near future.

If confirmed, this would make China the first country in the world to mount such a system on board a ship and take it out to sea.

The series of photos on social media shows a large turret with what appears to be a gun barrel mounted on the front of the Haiyangshan, a 7,000-ton Type 072-III Landing Ship Tank of China’s People’s Liberation Army – Navy or PLAN.



Three standard sized containers are mounted on the ship’s open deck immediately aft of the turret, which are believed to be the generators and other associated equipment needed to power a railgun. Other modifications on the ship seen in the published photos also include a new additional observation gallery and an unknown sensor atop the original superstructure, which is believed to be a control room and observation platform related to the railgun.

The bow doors used for conducting amphibious operations has also been welded shut. It is not known where the modified ship was photographed, although the Haiyangshan was previously known to serve with the PLAN’s East Sea Fleet. The ship has made at least one voyage post-modification, suggesting underway trials to test the seaworthiness of the modifications has begun.


The choice of the Type 072-III to mount such a weapon would instead of the PLAN’s Type 909 weapons testing ship would seem strange, however analysts have suggested that the power requirements of the railgun may have exceeded what the Type 909 can generate, hence the need to mount in on a Type 072-III, which has ample space above and belowdecks to accommodate power generators and other equipment.




*  China launches its first locally built aircraft carrier *
The new carrier is based closely on the PLAN’s sole operational aircraft carrier, Liaoning, with an angled flight deck and a ski jump for short takeoff but arrested recovery operations.

By: Mike Yeo
Sign up for our Daily News Roundup
The top Defense News stories of the day

Despite the name, railguns use electromagnetic forces to launch high velocity projectiles by means of a sliding armature that is accelerated along a pair of conductive rails. The projectiles normally do not contain explosives, relying on the projectile’s high speed to inflict damage.


The electromagnetic forces impart very high kinetic energy to a projectile, easily exceeding that produced by explosive fired guns. Other advantages are the absence of explosive propellants or warheads to store and handle, as well as the low cost of projectiles compared to conventional weaponry such as cruise missiles, while the high speed of their projectiles make them difficult to defend against.

The United States Naval Surface Warfare Center’s Dahlgren Division has demonstrated a railgun firing 3.2 kg (7.1 lb) projectiles in October 2006 as a prototype of a more powerful weapon to be deployed aboard Navy warships. Development of this technology is continuing, with the Office of Naval Research demonstrating in mid-2017 the ability to launch a “multi shot salvo” of two projectiles in a 12-second span.

However, these are land-based systems, and no railgun has yet been fitted on to a ship of the U.S. Navy although plans a afoot for ship mounting and integration tests this year.



AddThis Sharing Buttons
Share to Facebook85Share to TwitterShare to Google+Share to EmailShare to More


----------



## clarkgap

Chinese 10 MJ Rail-gun prototype (2010 or earlier):












Maybe a coil-gun consist of three multi-stages coils? But also looks like BAE's railgun.












BAE railgun

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Dungeness



Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Cybernetics

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959154060099313666

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Beast

Cybernetics said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959154060099313666
> View attachment 451226
> View attachment 451227
> View attachment 451228
> 
> View attachment 451229



Maybe they will place the front row VLS with cold launch missile only? LOL...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

So what is the advantage of Railgun in a battle? It is basically a conventional cannon with the range of a missile isn't it?


----------



## powastick

Cybernetics said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/959154060099313666
> View attachment 451226
> View attachment 451227
> View attachment 451228
> 
> View attachment 451229


Damn, the caliber is huge.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## aliaselin

Brainsucker said:


> So what is the advantage of Railgun in a battle? It is basically a conventional cannon with the range of a missile isn't it?


A railgun guided shell cost only 200,000 Yuan with range of 200km and speed of M7

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## shadows888

Brainsucker said:


> So what is the advantage of Railgun in a battle? It is basically a conventional cannon with the range of a missile isn't it?



Kinetic, cuts thru ships like butter, 10x range, 10x speed of sound, impossible to defend?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## JSCh



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Makarena

Brainsucker said:


> So what is the advantage of Railgun in a battle? It is basically a conventional cannon with the range of a missile isn't it?



beside almost impossible to intercept, it is also multi functions. You can use it for anti ship, anti air, anti ballistic missile, for land attack etc etc, all in single gun. The shell is cheaper than missile too.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## JSCh

​The banner read Building first class naval weapon for world's first class navy.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## clarkgap

Base on this picture, the gun has a rectangular barrel. So it should be a rail-gun.

Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## JSCh

​

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Beast

JSCh said:


> ​


This single LST with a single railgun alone can sink a lowa and a Yamato battleship combine in 1945.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Beast said:


> This single LST with a single railgun alone can sink a lowa and a Yamato battleship combine in 1945.



Seriously, even a 056 can destroy Yamato with enough missile.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

clarkgap said:


> Base on this picture, the gun has a rectangular barrel. So it should be a rail-gun.
> 
> View attachment 451378



Part of the barrel is also circular.

Circular for coilgun.

So it is not entirely without reason that the gun might be a reconnection gun.

The holy grail of electromagnetic guns.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Sully3

please China give this technology to Pakistan navy to defend Gawdar and Karachi


----------



## clarkgap

Sully3 said:


> please China give this technology to Pakistan navy to defend Gawdar and Karachi






Sully3 said:


> please China give this technology to Pakistan navy to defend Gawdar and Karachi


 
Anti-ship missile still will be the best weapon to protect prots in next decade.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## waja2000

Seems China railgun photo shocking the world military....

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## Sh@msu

I am hearing China preparing for Navy EMRG test,is it true?


----------



## 帅的一匹

Sully3 said:


> please China give this technology to Pakistan navy to defend Gawdar and Karachi


Take it easy bro


----------



## lcloo

2011 December, a satellite photo showed 2 large guns, placed horizontal in a desert near Baotou in China. In front of the guns were square target blocks which are just tens of metres away from the gun. So it is possible these are the land based rail gun tests that was carried out 6 or 7 years ago?

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## clarkgap

lcloo said:


> 2011 December, a satellite photo showed 2 large guns, placed horizontal in a desert near Baotou in China. In front of the guns were square target blocks which are just tens of metres away from the gun. So it is possible these are the land based rail gun tests that was carried out 6 or 7 years ago?
> 
> View attachment 451658
> View attachment 451660



@星海军事 https://weibo.com/guokrjs?is_all=1

Satellite image of biggun in 2017 (may not railgun):






Location: 内蒙古自治区 - 巴彦淖尔市 - 乌拉特前旗 - 刘彦圪卜 - North by West 400 meters.
(40.844259, 109.607595)

Looks it pierces 14 layers of armour.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## shadows888

lcloo said:


> 2011 December, a satellite photo showed 2 large guns, placed horizontal in a desert near Baotou in China. In front of the guns were square target blocks which are just tens of metres away from the gun. So it is possible these are the land based rail gun tests that was carried out 6 or 7 years ago?
> 
> View attachment 451658
> View attachment 451660



Not sure, but sources say the "Rail Gun" have been in development by the PLA for about 5 years. it's possible that it's been longer. the one developed by BAE systems was started way back in 2005.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

To be honest, I'm more interested withMa Weiming's plan to create a space launch port that can shoot a Chinese space craft into the space without rocket. It's more amazing to achieved than the rail gun. Because if they manage to make it work, space travel will become way cheaper than the way today. And it will change everything, including the era that we live today.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Grandy

*China’s military fires up world first in revolutionary rail gun technology*
Photographs surface of ship-mounted electromagnetic weapon that could one day supersede traditional explosives with greater power, speed, range and accuracy

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 06 February, 2018, 9:33pm
UPDATED : Tuesday, 06 February, 2018, 11:54pm







China is believed to be testing the world’s first ship-mounted rail gun, a technology that military experts say has the potential to fire shells with enough force to destroy a warship and precision to shoot down a satellite.

The controversial development comes as China seeks to transform its navy into a blue-water force capable of rivalling the United States and projecting power far from home shores.

Photographs of a rail gun mounted on a warship docked in Wuhan, Hubei province, have surfaced on Chinese military websites in the last week, indicating the People’s Liberation Army Navy is testing the electromagnetic weapon and has been able to make it more compact.






Rail guns fire shells using electromagnetic force rather than traditional explosive propulsion systems. They are designed to fire the projectiles with more accuracy and power and over a longer range, but are also extremely expensive.






The US has researched and tested rail guns for years, with prototypes firing projectiles at up to 7,800km/hour over a 150km range. The cost of the projectiles was reportedly US$1 million per round.

But the Chinese device appears to be the first mounted on a ship.

The rail gun uses electromagnetic technology known as IEPS that state media confirmed last year would power China’s first home-grown aircraft carrier.

The system was developed by a team headed by decorated PLA naval engineer Rear Admiral Ma Weiming, who told state broadcaster CCTV in July that his ultimate goal was to install weapons such as rail guns on the carrier.

China’s state-run _Science and Technology Daily_ reported on Monday that the cutting-edge technology would be deployed on the Type-055, the country’s biggest guided-missile destroyer designed as part of future aircraft carrier battle groups.

But sources close to Chinese military told the _South China Morning Post_ that the destroyer’s propulsion system and internal design were not suited for the rail gun.

The gun in the photographs was installed on a Type-072 landing ship refitted to house the bulky electrical equipment.

Song Zhongping, military commentator and former member of the PLA’s Second Artillery Corps, said future generations of the destroyer could be fitted with the weapon down the track.

Song said China was closing the gap with the US and it was possible that China could eventually abandon explosives in favour of electromagnetic systems.

“China has spared no effort to catch up the US’ electromagnetic technology, to turn the new technology into an all-purpose propulsion system for wide use in ship-mounted weapons and maglev trains and even to replace rockets to launch satellites into the space,” he said.

“The leaked photos show China is now not only catching up to the US in ship-borne rail gun technology, but may surpass the US in next five to 10 years. This is because the US needs more time to approve budgets while China’s political system allows it to put more funding into special projects.”

The US Naval Institute reported last month that the US Navy scrapped plans in 2016 to buy 2,000 rail gun projectiles but would continue to monitor new technologies that could be incorporated into its existing systems.






Beijing-based military analyst Zhou Chenming said the purchase stalled because of the expensive technology’s low return on investment.

“The US is hesitating because the cost of the new weapon’s development is huge, while its practicability is debatable,” Zhou said.

“Proponents argue that [rail guns] can hit targets several thousand kilometres away guided by the space-based Global Positioning System. But [the US] air force can hit long-range targets easily by dropping cruise missiles from their stealth bombers or fighters, something that is much more cost-effective.”

Military insiders said the high cost of and Ma’s involvement in the Chinese rail gun project also made it contentious.

“The decision to develop the costly electromagnetic rail gun also provoked debate because so far only Ma and his team are the only electromagnetic experts developing it,” one insider said.

“But Ma’s team has the backing of the leadership and that is also the reason why the electromagnetic technology has been developed so fast in China.”

Last year Chinese President Xi Jinping awarded Ma, 57, the country’s highest military honour, the Order of August 1.


This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: China aims for the first hi-tech rail gun mounted on warship

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## 帅的一匹

Cause we have genius like Ma Wei Ming, and USA doesn't.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

wanglaokan said:


> Cause we have genius like Ma Wei Ming, and USA doesn't.



Ma Weiming is not the designer of railgun or EMALS. These projects are affiliated to him because he is national academician, which means he can applied more money for his projects.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## beijingwalker

*China surges ahead in military technology with creation of new ‘supergun’*
2:51pm Feb 6, 2018
China looks to be beating the US at its own game – the production of weaponry – with the nation fitting a new ‘supergun’ aboard a warship.

The first images of the new weapon began circulating on the internet last week and show a Chinese amphibious assault ship, usually used to deploy troops and tanks on a beach, fitted with an enormous cannon on its bow.

Beijing’s official mouthpiece, The People’s Daily Online, quickly confirmed speculation that the unusually large single-barrelled weapon was an electromagnetic rail gun.

Electromagnetic rail guns use magnets to fire warheads down its barrel and into the air.

It is thought this enables larger warheads to be fired much faster than traditional cannons.

These weapons could sink ships, destroy aircraft or missiles in flight and could even attack land targets.

“Though the US has been openly developing electromagnetic guns for years, it doesn’t mean that China is far behind in this field, as the latter [usually] keeps quiet about its progress due to secrecy concerns,” Chen Shuoren, a military commentator, told the Science and Technology Daily component of The People’s Daily Online.

“If the pictures are confirmed to be true, this would be a milestone for China’s electromagnetic weapons research program, with epoch-making significance,” Chen said.

As China becomes more confident in the field of military technology, the US has had troubles with its own electromagnetic propulsion systems.

A new catapult has frequently misfired since it was fitted to the carrier USS Ford which could mean the loss of a $100 million jet fighter and its pilot if it plunged into the sea ahead of the ship.

China’s surge ahead comes after President Xi Jinping showed off the forces at his command to foreign and domestic audiences in July last year.

Live state television broadcasts showed Xi, dressed in fatigues and speaking from an open-top jeep, telling his troops that China needed a strong military "more than ever" as it moved "closer to the goal of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation."

Xi, who commands the People's Liberation Army as chairman of the Central Military Commission, has frequently spoken of his "China Dream" to restore China to a leadership position in international affairs with a modern, far-reaching military force to match.

https://www.9news.com.au/world/2018/02/06/14/41/china-military-technology-supergun

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## AZADPAKISTAN2009

Super Gun can't be blocked by EW


----------



## Makarena

dude, there is already a threat for this

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Deino

Makarena said:


> dude, there is already a threat for this



@Makarena Thanks for your hint
*Indeed and I may remind you that you already got a warning for deliberately posting and starting new threads several times when there are already existing ones. 

@beijingwalker !!
So why again?? Laziness, stubbornness ... ignorance??
You are such a long-time member here YOU must know that ... so why?

Deino*


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> @Makarena Thanks for your hint
> *Indeed and I may remind you that you already got a warning for deliberately posting and starting new threads several times when there are already existing ones.
> 
> @beijingwalker !!
> So why again?? Laziness, stubbornness ... ignorance??
> You are such a long-time member here YOU must know that ... so why?
> 
> Deino*



Deino, sorry, but you quote the wrong guy . I think you should remind Beijing Walker, not Makarena  And please forgive me for quoting the Moderator Warning Post. I shouldn't do this. So I will put more restraint in the future.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Dungeness

Deino said:


> @Makarena Thanks for your hint
> *Indeed and I may remind you that you already got a warning for deliberately posting and starting new threads several times when there are already existing ones.
> 
> @beijingwalker !!
> So why again?? Laziness, stubbornness ... ignorance??
> You are such a long-time member here YOU must know that ... so why?
> 
> Deino*



Open a new thread on current development about an old topic will renew the interest and attract more readers, I think. I would suggest to relax your "no new thread rule" for 48-72 hours after new thread appears, then merge it with the existing one. You have constantly giving out warnings, and seem to be very bothered for this persistent "violation".

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Brainsucker

Dungeness said:


> Open a new thread on current development about an old topic will renew the interest and attract more readers, I think. I would suggest to relax your "no new thread rule" for 48-72 hours after new thread appears, then merge it with the existing one. You have constantly giving out warnings, and seem to be very bothered for this persistent "violation".



Well, that's his style, I don't think that it's bad.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Dungeness

Brainsucker said:


> Well, that's his style, I don't think that it's bad.



Sure, if every mod follows the same rule, we would see the number of threads on PDF cut down by half. Just search for the threads with "India supercomputer" in the title.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Brainsucker said:


> Deino, sorry, but you quote the wrong guy . I think you should remind Beijing Walker, not Makarena  And please forgive me for quoting the Moderator Warning Post. I shouldn't do this. So I will put more restraint in the future.



Thanks for the note and sorry for being unclear. I surely did not warn Makarena.



Dungeness said:


> Open a new thread on current development about an old topic will renew the interest and attract more readers, I think. I would suggest to relax your "no new thread rule" for 48-72 hours after new thread appears, then merge it with the existing one. You have constantly giving out warnings, and seem to be very bothered for this persistent "violation".



To admit I don't know if this would help and if a general consensus is here among the members that would help "attract more readers", I will not stand in the way.

My point is that there are always the same members, who start a new one and IMO only since they want to rise their post- and rating-count. The EM-gun for example I think about 5 different threads were opened, sometimes two from the same poster only for quoting a slightly different "source". That's something it does not need to be.

The Doklam issue or the JF-17B and fifth generation projects are other prime examples.

Best,
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Brainsucker

Dungeness said:


> Sure, if every mod follows the same rule, we would see the number of threads on PDF cut down by half. Just search for the threads with "India supercomputer" in the title.



But still, Deino's style help us to browse easily in this sub section. If you want to know everything about J-10, go there. If you want to know about J-11 or other Chinese Flanker, you don't have to search the sea of thread; you just only need to read everything in the J-11 threads. That help.

But I like your idea about 48 - 72 hours delay. It can be considered as "Today Front Page News". The Mod can just merge it after one or two days time. The problem is, it will increase Mod's work load in here, and it's a lot work load, if everyone create new thread for new news.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Martian2

Dungeness said:


> Sure, if every mod follows the same rule, we would see the number of threads on PDF cut down by half. Just search for the threads with "India supercomputer" in the title.


Dungeness is absolutely right.

All of the PDF members have moved to the China & Far East forum for discussions on current events.

Deino has been insanely strict about anyone opening a new thread.

This is NOT Sino-Defense Forum (SDF). That is why no one posts on SDF, except for a few diehards. SDF had the same ridiculous rule. SDF is basically a dead forum.

The purpose of a forum is to discuss current events.

People are not going to view old threads when they think there is no new information.

I used to post threads in the Chinese Defense sub-forum all the time.

After Deino kept removing my threads with NEW INFORMATION, I stopped visiting the Chinese Defense sub-forum.

I haven't posted a new thread in the Chinese Defense sub-forum for months.

I'm not coming back to the Chinese Defense sub-forum anytime soon.

All of the new information and FREEDOM to discuss is over in the China & Far East forum.

If PDF applied the same strict rule on new threads to the China & Far East forum then I will stop visiting PDF.

I stopped visiting SDF years ago, because they cared more about their rules than discussing geopolitics.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dungeness

Brainsucker said:


> But still, Deino's style help us to browse easily in this sub section. If you want to know everything about J-10, go there. If you want to know about J-11 or other Chinese Flanker, you don't have to search the sea of thread; you just only need to read everything in the J-11 threads. That help.
> 
> But I like your idea about 48 - 72 hours delay. It can be considered as "Today Front Page News". The Mod can just merge it after one or two days time. The problem is, it will increase Mod's work load in here, and it's a lot work load, if everyone create new thread for new news.



Agree, it keeps PDF neat and easier to search for the information if every mod is sticking to the same rule, otherwise "New Posts and Threads" page, which I use everyday, will be filled with new threads like "LCA drops a bomb/missile/rocket" or "super-supercomputer by 2017/2020" etc. 

I , for one, would be more much likely to click on "China sends 17th and 18th Navigation Satellites today" than search for news in "China Space programs updates" thread.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Deino

Martian2 said:


> Dungeness is absolutely right.
> 
> All of the PDF members have moved to the China & Far East forum for discussions on current events.
> 
> Deino has been insanely strict about anyone opening a new thread.
> 
> This is NOT Sino-Defense Forum (SDF). That is why no one posts on SDF, except for a few diehards. SDF had the same ridiculous rule. SDF is basically a dead forum.
> 
> The purpose of a forum is to discuss current events.
> 
> People are not going to view old threads when they think there is no new information.
> 
> I used to post threads in the Chinese Defense sub-forum all the time.
> 
> After Deino kept removing my threads with NEW INFORMATION, I stopped visiting the Chinese Defense sub-forum.
> 
> I haven't posted a new thread in the Chinese Defense sub-forum for months.
> 
> I'm not coming back to the Chinese Defense sub-forum anytime soon.
> 
> All of the new information and FREEDOM to discuss is over in the China & Far East forum.
> 
> If PDF applied the same strict rule on new threads to the China & Far East forum then I will stop visiting PDF.
> 
> I stopped visiting SDF years ago, because they cared more about their rules than discussing geopolitics.




Then a simple solution might be to ask the webmaster or to start a discussion on that topic. If he agrees on your opinion I have no problem to follow the majority.... what I however don't like is that some are very sensible in anything that can be taken offensive or as an insult against their own opinion, while in return they are more than insulting and aggressive on their own against others. By my opinion most that have left did not leave due to my "strict holding the rules" but since they are no longer allowed to troll and insult others as they would like to.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Martian2

Deino said:


> Then a simple solution might be to ask the webmaster or to start a discussion on that topic. If he agrees on your opinion I have no problem to follow the majority.... what I however don't like is that some are very sensible in anything that can be taken offensive or as an insult against their own opinion, while in return they are more than insulting and aggressive on their own against others. By my opinion most that have left did not leave due to my "strict holding the rules" but since they are no longer allowed to troll and insult others as they would like to.


I'm saying that being super-strict is just as bad as no supervision.

It's a balance.

I'm saying you went too far.
*
I don't know where the balance is.*

I posted a new thread in the Chinese Defense sub-forum about once every two weeks.

Common sense should tell you to leave my thread alone.

For those that post multiple threads without adding their own detailed analysis, there should be restrictions on PDF members that are basically spamming.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Deino

Martian2 said:


> ...
> I'm saying you went too far.
> *I don't know where the balance is.*
> ....



You are most likely correct, at least in a few cases and for that I apologize. But that's exactly the point... where is the balance?

I'm open for any reasonable recommendations or advice...

Best, 
Deino

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Figaro

Deino said:


> You are most likely correct, at least in a few cases and for that I apologize. But that's exactly the point... where is the balance?
> 
> I'm open for any reasonable recommendations or advice...
> 
> Best,
> Deino


I agree with Deino on closing Beijing Walker’s thread and moving it to this thread. There is absolutely no reason to dedicate a new thread to one single post .. especially if such a thread already exists.



Brainsucker said:


> Well, that's his style, I don't think that it's bad.


Opening up a completely new thread on a redundant subject is pointless ... it’s like someone dedicating an entire thread to an article on the J-20 when such a thread already exists


----------



## Brainsucker

Deino said:


> You are most likely correct, at least in a few cases and for that I apologize. But that's exactly the point... where is the balance?
> 
> I'm open for any reasonable recommendations or advice...
> 
> Best,
> Deino



Maybe you should let Beijing Walker make a thread for himself, Like Cirr and Lieo and tell him to stick on to his 1 own thread.


----------



## Beast

This video was posted on Dec 2017 and quoting Ma Weiming reported claiming China is at least 10years ahead of US and a real railgun has long tested on Inner Mongolia. Many people thought he is BS or boasting but fast forward 2 months later...






He is not boasting and what he say is just the reality.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## jkroo

Beast said:


> This video was posted on Dec 2017 and quoting Ma Weiming reported claiming China is at least 10years ahead of US and a real railgun has long tested on Inner Mongolia. Many people thought he is BS or boasting but fast forward 2 months later...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not boasting and what he say is just the reality.



Oh yeah. The cruel reality to be faced are not us. 

He also stated that the EM system is one generation ahead USA. LOL

Now the options in your hand. Yes or No?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

Beast said:


> This video was posted on Dec 2017 and quoting Ma Weiming reported claiming China is at least 10years ahead of US and a real railgun has long tested on Inner Mongolia. Many people thought he is BS or boasting but fast forward 2 months later...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He is not boasting and what he say is just the reality.



The big gun in NeiMeng may not be a railgun because there is no any power supply equipments around it.



jkroo said:


> Oh yeah. The cruel reality to be faced are not us.
> 
> He also stated that the EM system is one generation ahead USA. LOL
> 
> Now the options in your hand. Yes or No?



The advance integrated electrical power system still not be installed on any ship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jkroo

clarkgap said:


> The big gun in NeiMeng may not be a railgun because there is no any power supply equipments around it.
> 
> 
> 
> The advance integrated electrical power system still not be installed on any ship.



OK, why not make it clear? Do you trust Professor Ma and the 'one generation ahead USA' issue?

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

jkroo said:


> OK, why not make it clear? Do you trust Professor Ma and the 'one generation ahead USA' issue?



I think we should compare them after 054B go into service.


----------



## Beast

jkroo said:


> Oh yeah. The cruel reality to be faced are not us.
> 
> He also stated that the EM system is one generation ahead USA. LOL
> 
> Now the options in your hand. Yes or No?


I can dare to bet Professor Ma is willing to bet his life with his claim. There are already plenty of indication even before his announcement. And he dont get first class national award from President Xi for nothing or faking...



jkroo said:


> OK, why not make it clear? Do you trust Professor Ma and the 'one generation ahead USA' issue?


He has no ball to bet with you.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Figaro

jkroo said:


> OK, why not make it clear? Do you trust Professor Ma and the 'one generation ahead USA' issue?


To be fair, Mr. Ma is definitely more credible than you .



jkroo said:


> Oh yeah. The cruel reality to be faced are not us.
> 
> He also stated that the EM system is one generation ahead USA. LOL
> 
> Now the options in your hand. Yes or No?


You're missing some key facts here. I recommend you read up on numerous electromagnetic weaponry studies found on Chinese journals. Last week, a rail gun was placed on a Chinese ship ... the first for any nation. To have the China is always behind mindset should be backed up with evidence rather than a simple "LOL". If you cannot disprove Ma's claim ... Then you best not attack it. It could be that Ma is exaggerating but it could also be an interpretation of confidence. China has invested much resources in this field ... not less than the United States. We have seen the issue plaguing the current American EM catapult ... If Ma's catapult is reliable, that alone gives it a advantage over the US. Of course, we won't know for sure until a few years later ...


----------



## cirr

Abstract of a research paper published in Sept. 2013 

论证了1门*200mm*口径超大炮口动能电磁轨道炮用以进行高超声速发射,目标是将*20kg*弹丸的初速提高到*2500m/s*,其炮口动能将超过*62MJ*。通过多个不同算例的计算,综合考虑电枢受力、电流密度与峰值电流、电感梯度和技术风险等因素,最终选择了一种简单轨道炮结构。基于200MJ电容器组储能式脉冲电源系统,建立了轨道炮系统仿真模型并进行了分析,设计的发射器身管长为*8m*,铜轨道电感梯度约为0.4μH/m,峰值电流约为7MA,有效电流不低于6MA,弹丸炮口初速可达到*2540m/s*,炮口动能达到*64MJ*,系统效率为*31.8%*。

电磁炮的技术优势主要表现在高初速,远射程和大威力上,其战术价值可用于远程打击和火力压制、反临近空间平台作战、高速小目标末端防御等方面。电磁炮有望成为可大幅度提升军队装备能力的新概念武器。电磁轨道炮技术在我国的发展经过了三个主要阶段。由于大电流对轨道和电枢材料的烧蚀,以及超大规模电源系统的限制,上个世纪电磁轨道炮技术发展缓慢 j。进入 21世纪以来,电磁轨道炮技术开始快速发展,许多关键技术取得了突破。笔者从基础设计理论、电枢受力、电流密度与峰值电流、电感梯度和技术风险等角度探讨了简单轨道炮、串联增强轨道炮、两匝轨道炮的优势与不足,根据分析结果选定简单轨道炮作为超大炮口动能轨道炮的基本方案,对该方案进行了详细的分析计算

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Cybernetics

cirr said:


> Abstract of a research paper published in Sept. 2013
> 
> 论证了1门*200mm*口径超大炮口动能电磁轨道炮用以进行高超声速发射,目标是将*20kg*弹丸的初速提高到*2500m/s*,其炮口动能将超过*62MJ*。通过多个不同算例的计算,综合考虑电枢受力、电流密度与峰值电流、电感梯度和技术风险等因素,最终选择了一种简单轨道炮结构。基于200MJ电容器组储能式脉冲电源系统,建立了轨道炮系统仿真模型并进行了分析,设计的发射器身管长为*8m*,铜轨道电感梯度约为0.4μH/m,峰值电流约为7MA,有效电流不低于6MA,弹丸炮口初速可达到*2540m/s*,炮口动能达到*64MJ*,系统效率为*31.8%*。
> 
> 电磁炮的技术优势主要表现在高初速,远射程和大威力上,其战术价值可用于远程打击和火力压制、反临近空间平台作战、高速小目标末端防御等方面。电磁炮有望成为可大幅度提升军队装备能力的新概念武器。电磁轨道炮技术在我国的发展经过了三个主要阶段。由于大电流对轨道和电枢材料的烧蚀,以及超大规模电源系统的限制,上个世纪电磁轨道炮技术发展缓慢 j。进入 21世纪以来,电磁轨道炮技术开始快速发展,许多关键技术取得了突破。笔者从基础设计理论、电枢受力、电流密度与峰值电流、电感梯度和技术风险等角度探讨了简单轨道炮、串联增强轨道炮、两匝轨道炮的优势与不足,根据分析结果选定简单轨道炮作为超大炮口动能轨道炮的基本方案,对该方案进行了详细的分析计算


Translation of the 2013 paper abstract:
A 200mm caliber muzzle kinetic energy electromagnetic rail gun was demonstrated for hypersonic launch. The goal is to increase the muzzle velocity of a 20kg projectile to 2500m / s and its muzzle kinetic energy to exceed 62MJ. Through the calculation of several different examples, a simple rail gun structure was finally selected by comprehensive consideration of factors such as force of armature, current density and peak current, inductance gradient and technical risk. Based on 200MJ capacitor bank impulse power system, the simulation model of rail gun system was established and analyzed. The designed emitter length is 8m, the inductance gradient of copper track is about 0.4μH / m, the peak current is about 7MA, Effective current of not less than 6MA, the projectile muzzle velocity of up to 2540m / s, muzzle kinetic energy of 64MJ, the system efficiency of 31.8%.

The technical superiority of the electromagnetic guns mainly manifests in the high muzzle velocity, long range and great power. Its tactical value can be used for long-range strike and fire suppression, anti-pro-recent space platform combat and high-speed small target end defense. Electromagnetic guns are expected to become a new concept weapon that can greatly enhance the capability of military equipment. Electromagnetic rail gun technology in our country through the development of the three main stages. Electromagnetic rail gun technology has been slow to develop in the last century due to the high current ablation of rail and armature materials and the limitations of very large power systems. Since entering the 21st century, electromagnetic rail gun technology began to rapidly develop, and many key technologies have made breakthroughs. The author discusses the advantages and disadvantages of simple rail guns, tandem reinforced rail guns and two-turn rail guns from the perspectives of basic design theory, armature force, current density and peak current, inductance gradient and technical risks. According to the analysis results, As the basic scheme of the track gun with large muzzle kinetic energy, the track gun has been analyzed and calculated in detail

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

Although Ma does have significant credentials and authority of expertise under his belt, for his claims to be truly believable he would need to prove that he is fully informed of the nuts & bolts of the US railgun program as well as the progress and future direction of BAe and GA railgun projects, something that is very unlikely. For anyone, including engineers as high-up as Mr. Ma, to make such comparisons without unequivocal doubt would be an impossible feat given that the *only* personnel with direct access to American railgun test data and blueprints would be, well, the US railgun engineers themselves.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## jkroo

Beast said:


> I can dare to bet Professor Ma is willing to bet his life with his claim. There are already plenty of indication even before his announcement. And he dont get first class national award from President Xi for nothing or faking...
> 
> 
> He has no ball to bet with you.


You understand me, bro. lol



Figaro said:


> To be fair, Mr. Ma is definitely more credible than you .
> 
> 
> You're missing some key facts here. I recommend you read up on numerous electromagnetic weaponry studies found on Chinese journals. Last week, a rail gun was placed on a Chinese ship ... the first for any nation. To have the China is always behind mindset should be backed up with evidence rather than a simple "LOL". If you cannot disprove Ma's claim ... Then you best not attack it. It could be that Ma is exaggerating but it could also be an interpretation of confidence. China has invested much resources in this field ... not less than the United States. We have seen the issue plaguing the current American EM catapult ... If Ma's catapult is reliable, that alone gives it a advantage over the US. Of course, we won't know for sure until a few years later ...



TBF, Professor Ma has no need to exaggrate anything. He has been rewarded the top awards at the level of Nation for science and technology.

To make it clear, Professor Ma point to the equipment in live news and said that his system is one generation ahead of USA. I DO trust him just like I trust Professor Pan Jianwei.

So what's your option for his claim with technological view?



Akasa said:


> Although Ma does have significant credentials and authority of expertise under his belt, for his claims to be truly believable he would need to prove that he is fully informed of the nuts & bolts of the US railgun program as well as the progress and future direction of BAe and GA railgun projects, something that is very unlikely. For anyone, including engineers as high-up as Mr. Ma, to make such comparisons without unequivocal doubt would be an impossible feat given that the *only* personnel with direct access to American railgun test data and blueprints would be, well, the US railgun engineers themselves.



Try to learn some concept model or technology roadmap then talk. No need to quote/reply me for this issue anymore.Thanks.



clarkgap said:


> I think we should compare them after 054B go into service.


I am afraid they are going to manage launch the satelite into space using this system at that time. Time is good thing and will change many things. Let's wait and see.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## clarkgap

jkroo said:


> You understand me, bro. lol
> 
> 
> 
> TBF, Professor Ma has no need to exaggrate anything. He has been rewarded the top awards at the level of Nation for science and technology.
> 
> To make it clear, Professor Ma point to the equipment in live news and said that his system is one generation ahead of USA. I DO trust him just like I trust Professor Pan Jianwei.
> 
> So what's your option for his claim with technological view?
> 
> 
> 
> Try to learn some concept model or technology roadmap then talk. No need to quote/reply me for this issue anymore.Thanks.
> 
> 
> I am afraid they are going to manage launch the satelite into space using this system at that time. Time is good thing and will change many things. Let's wait and see.



Ma Weiming was not talking about railgun, he was talking about his integrated electrical power system. And the system still not be installed on any ship.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Akasa said:


> Although Ma does have significant credentials and authority of expertise under his belt, for his claims to be truly believable he would need to prove that he is fully informed of the nuts & bolts of the US railgun program as well as the progress and future direction of BAe and GA railgun projects, something that is very unlikely. For anyone, including engineers as high-up as Mr. Ma, to make such comparisons without unequivocal doubt would be an impossible feat given that the *only* personnel with direct access to American railgun test data and blueprints would be, well, the US railgun engineers themselves.


Didn't US always claim Chinese carry out espionage and steal their data? I can bet Professor Ma is disappointed with the data he obtained through his agent from US and able to conclude US are far behind in his research.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Jlaw

Beast said:


> Didn't US always claim Chinese carry out espionage and steal their data? I can bet Professor Ma is disappointed with the data he obtained through his agent from US and able to conclude US are far behind in his research.


If it is so easy to steal US tech data, India should have all the US military secrets since they claim to have the biggest "IT" sector in the world. Plus they claim36% NASA scientists are Indians and majority of silicon valley are Indians

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Jlaw said:


> If it is so easy to steal US tech data, India should have all the US military secrets since they claim to have the biggest "IT" sector in the world. Plus they claim36% NASA scientists are Indians and majority of silicon valley are Indians


Well, to be fair India probably has stolen US secrets ... unfortunately, there are unable to reverse-engineer or incorporate them into domestic designs simply because of their industry (or lack thereof). As a result, we see the Indian military importing everything from parachutes and light machine guns to fighter jets.


----------



## kurutoga

Beast said:


> This video was posted on Dec 2017 and quoting Ma Weiming reported claiming China is at least 10years ahead of US and a real railgun has long tested on Inner Mongolia. Many people thought he is BS or boasting but fast forward 2 months later...



The video is a mixture of many "would be" scenarios. First you have to understand railgun projects are not led by Prof. Ma, not even the same research institute. What Ma was doing is the power distribution system that affects railgun. One could argue that Prof. Ma's work is also decisive in EM catapult on a carrier, but remember Prof. Ma does not lead the carrier project, not even the EM catapult project. He does not work on specific weaponry, only the power distribution system.

So, for Prof. Ma giving out estimates on railgun can only be very general. He said the "Medium Voltage DC Power Distribution" is 10 years ahead of US, but you have to remember China does not yet have a warship that uses IEP, therefore Prof. Ma's system is yet to be applied on a ship. For more info about this topic here is a good video intro 






At 10:50 he explained the advantage of a DC (power distribution) system. He said the AC bus driving EMALS on USS Ford is workable. But the same system is too heavy for a 7000 ton destroyer if you want to host an EM weapon like a railgun. One can conclude once you have a mixture of such EM weapons such as a laser gun plus a railgun, you will have even more problems. Ma's solution will make it possible for Type 055 to mount a railgun, and it will be the same type of solution USN is pursuing.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## jkroo

kurutoga said:


> The video is a mixture of many "would be" scenarios. First you have to understand railgun projects are not led by Prof. Ma, not even the same research institute. What Ma was doing is the power distribution system that affects railgun. One could argue that Prof. Ma's work is also decisive in EM catapult on a carrier, but remember Prof. Ma does not lead the carrier project, not even the EM catapult project. He does not work on specific weaponry, only the power distribution system.
> 
> So, for Prof. Ma giving out estimates on railgun can only be very general. He said the "Medium Voltage DC Power Distribution" is 10 years ahead of US, but you have to remember China does not yet have a warship that uses IEP, therefore Prof. Ma's system is yet to be applied on a ship. For more info about this topic here is a good video intro
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 10:50 he explained the advantage of a DC (power distribution) system. He said the AC bus driving EMALS on USS Ford is workable. But the same system is too heavy for a 7000 ton destroyer if you want to host an EM weapon like a railgun. One can conclude once you have a mixture of such EM weapons such as a laser gun plus a railgun, you will have even more problems. Ma's solution will make it possible for Type 055 to mount a railgun, and it will be the same type of solution USN is pursuing.



Quite fair and rational. The key point is something like I can make an outer solar system spacecraft if I have powerful engines. Now you have the engine! 

It's an important milestone for the EM technology roadmap though there are many problems to deal with. Isn't it?
The 'would be' causes are backed up by EMALS, railgun prototypes even there will appear EM launchers that can launch satelites. I just believe in Prof. Ma's claim.

It's just an option game for you before you surpass Prof. Ma's achievement in EM technology field. Right? Your choice again. lol

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## kurutoga

jkroo said:


> Quite fair and rational. The key point is something like I can make an outer solar system spacecraft if I have powerful engines. Now you have the engine!
> 
> It's an important milestone for the EM technology roadmap though there are many problems to deal with. Isn't it?
> The 'would be' causes are backed up by EMALS, railgun prototypes even there will appear EM launchers that can launch satelites. I just believe in Prof. Ma's claim.
> 
> It's just an option game for you before you surpass Prof. Ma's achievement in EM technology field. Right? Your choice again. lol



I think Prof. Ma is absolutely a talent and a teacher that can push Chinese Naval power to be the world leader some day. But as a system, we also need to improve the turbine (QC280), each individual weapon system (including carrier-based jets), and more importantly, training. USN always have the advantage in actual combat experience, PLAN should be humble and try to learn. But there is no denial PLAN may have some very important ships that performs better than the corresponding USN ships before 2035. 

I actually think the Chinese (solid state) laser weapon will be disclosed in the next two years! The point is China only wants order, and less hostility in West Pacific, not global dominance. With that goal, the process can be quicker and more effective.

Once you are #2 you always focus on things you do well. Once you are #1 you will notice your shortcomings more. That is just human nature.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Grandy

*Is China's space laser for real?*
* It's not a Death Star super laser. It's a space broom. *

By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer Yesterday at 11:50pm






It's not this.
China's space broom isn't the Death Star super laser. It's an orbiting satellite with a laser only powerful enough to heat up pieces of space junk, so that they change course burn up in the atmosphere.
Depositphotos

In a recent article in scientific journal _Optik_, a faculty member at China's Air Force Engineering University proposed building a laser-armed satellite, a "broom" to do battle with the pernicious problem of space debris.

Laser-armed satellites, naturally, generate a lot of attention, and so the proposal of Quan Wen and his co-authors has made its way into several splashy headlines. But it's more than hype. The concept addresses a real (and growing) problem: there's something like 17,852 artificial objects orbiting earth (PDF), and an estimated 300,000-plus pieces of space debris larger than a marble. At the fast orbital velocities up in space, even large craft like the International Space Station have to maneuver out of the way of small objects to avoid catastrophic damage.

Quan's research looks at the efficacy of a hypothetical laser operating near the infrared spectrum. It would blast away targeted space debris for a couple minutes, at a rate of twenty bursts of laserfire a second. That amount of energy would be sufficient to vaporize part of the object's mass. Contrary to public imagination, space laser brooms like the one proposed don't actually vaporize space debris, but rather "burn off" a chunk. This would create sufficient kinetic force from the chemical combustion to change the object's orbit. With that change in direction, the debris will quickly reenter the atmosphere and burn up. Because of atmospheric distortion, it's much more effective to zap space debris with a satellite than, say, a ground-based laser.

Of course, for now it's all theory. The laser broom would need to be actually mounted on a satellite and lofted into orbit to test its true efficacy. And even then, it'd still face some legal grey areas (technically speaking, space debris are still the property of owners of the satellites they originated from, which is very, very difficult to track) as well as major suspicion about the idea of implementing a weapon-like technology up in space.

Like many others, China's space program has both civilian and military applications. (The AoLong 1 satellite, for example, has a robotic arm for mechanically de-orbiting space debris that has has potential as an anti-satellite sabotage technology.) And so there's an obvious question: can the space laser broom be an anti-satellite weapon? It's certainly possible, though a cost-effective laser broom would need to be small—just big enough to take care of small debris. To quickly deal serious damage to enemy spacecraft, one would need a much larger space laser weapon; perhaps an orbital battlemoon?

*Popular Science* 
_Peter Warren Singer is a strategist and senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He has been named by Defense News as one of the 100 most influential people in defense issues. He was also dubbed an official "Mad Scientist" for the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command. Jeffrey is a national security professional in the greater D.C. area.
_

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Figaro

Chinese New Year break?

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Ultima Thule

Grandy said:


> *Is China's space laser for real?*
> * It's not a Death Star super laser. It's a space broom. *
> 
> By Jeffrey Lin and P.W. Singer Yesterday at 11:50pm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not this.
> China's space broom isn't the Death Star super laser. It's an orbiting satellite with a laser only powerful enough to heat up pieces of space junk, so that they change course burn up in the atmosphere.
> Depositphotos
> 
> In a recent article in scientific journal _Optik_, a faculty member at China's Air Force Engineering University proposed building a laser-armed satellite, a "broom" to do battle with the pernicious problem of space debris.
> 
> Laser-armed satellites, naturally, generate a lot of attention, and so the proposal of Quan Wen and his co-authors has made its way into several splashy headlines. But it's more than hype. The concept addresses a real (and growing) problem: there's something like 17,852 artificial objects orbiting earth (PDF), and an estimated 300,000-plus pieces of space debris larger than a marble. At the fast orbital velocities up in space, even large craft like the International Space Station have to maneuver out of the way of small objects to avoid catastrophic damage.
> 
> Quan's research looks at the efficacy of a hypothetical laser operating near the infrared spectrum. It would blast away targeted space debris for a couple minutes, at a rate of twenty bursts of laserfire a second. That amount of energy would be sufficient to vaporize part of the object's mass. Contrary to public imagination, space laser brooms like the one proposed don't actually vaporize space debris, but rather "burn off" a chunk. This would create sufficient kinetic force from the chemical combustion to change the object's orbit. With that change in direction, the debris will quickly reenter the atmosphere and burn up. Because of atmospheric distortion, it's much more effective to zap space debris with a satellite than, say, a ground-based laser.
> 
> Of course, for now it's all theory. The laser broom would need to be actually mounted on a satellite and lofted into orbit to test its true efficacy. And even then, it'd still face some legal grey areas (technically speaking, space debris are still the property of owners of the satellites they originated from, which is very, very difficult to track) as well as major suspicion about the idea of implementing a weapon-like technology up in space.
> 
> Like many others, China's space program has both civilian and military applications. (The AoLong 1 satellite, for example, has a robotic arm for mechanically de-orbiting space debris that has has potential as an anti-satellite sabotage technology.) And so there's an obvious question: can the space laser broom be an anti-satellite weapon? It's certainly possible, though a cost-effective laser broom would need to be small—just big enough to take care of small debris. To quickly deal serious damage to enemy spacecraft, one would need a much larger space laser weapon; perhaps an orbital battlemoon?
> 
> *Popular Science*
> _Peter Warren Singer is a strategist and senior fellow at the New America Foundation. He has been named by Defense News as one of the 100 most influential people in defense issues. He was also dubbed an official "Mad Scientist" for the U.S. Army's Training and Doctrine Command. Jeffrey is a national security professional in the greater D.C. area._


This thread is for Chinese railgun development you post it on a wrong thread Mr @Grandy

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

kurutoga said:


> Ma's solution will make it possible for Type 055 to mount a railgun, and it will be the same type of solution USN is pursuing.


 at the US copying China. Can't those copycats come up with something original for once?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clarkgap

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/pyQ3AZxg3mjqF3y8F90Neg

Looks like the railgun has been tested.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/971396067026665472
From @星海军事：http://www.starmil.net/forum.php/forum.php?mod=viewthread& tid=1293

"张晓(Xiao Zhang)，海军工程大学舰船综合电力技术国防科技重点实验室副研究员(Associate Researcher of Ship's comprehensive power technological National Science Key Lab, PLA Naval University of Engineering)"

"作为一名奋战在军队院校科研战线的工作者，她瞄准世界军事前沿技术，以”五加二“，”白加黑“的工作热忱，在电磁发射技术(electrmagnitic launch technology)领域埋头潜心研究。先后主持和参与国防973，国家自然科学基金，国防预研，军口863等国家和国防科研项目10余项。在某重大项目攻关过程中，经过数百次失败和五万多次的科研试验，了攻克制约某特种电源(special power supply)发展的数十项瓶颈技术，研制成功了世界上规模最大的连发型电源(first large-scale continuous uninterrupted power supply in world)，技术性能达到国际先进水平"。

"天道酬勤。某项国产新型武器装备第一次在船上试验就取得了成功(the shipboard test of a new domestic weaponry succeed)。"

http://www.bioon.com/z/nsfc2015/nsfc.asp?p=%D5%C5%CF%FE&qorder=cost

导轨式电磁发射装置(rail-style EMALS)用新型混合储能技术(hybrid energy storage technology)研究 - 张晓(Xiao Zhang) - 中国人民解放军海军工程大学(PLA Naval University of Engineering)

Dr. Zhang posted a journal on IEEE about hybrid energy storage system for railgun in 2015, this might be the early research. Here is the introdunction:

“Chemical stored energy + physical stored energy” mode is adopted to increase instant power in new-style hybrid energy storage technology, which decreases the power need of shipboard railgun to power grid, this mode takes full advantages of high energy density for chemical stored energy and high power density for physical stored energy.The basic principle is that energy from power grid is firstly transferred to battery within a relatively long time, and then the energy is transferred to capacitors within a short time, after that capacitors discharge to electronic load quickly, accordingly the instantaneous power is amplified. Academician Ma Weiming from Naval University of Engineering put forward that shipboard railgun should use hybrid energy storage for power supply, and led the development of correlation studies.

And I upload the journal:

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## Beast

clarkgap said:


> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/pyQ3AZxg3mjqF3y8F90Neg
> 
> Looks like the railgun system has been tested.
> 
> From @星海军事：http://www.starmil.net/forum.php/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=1293
> 
> “作为一名奋战在军队院校科研战线的工作者，她瞄准世界军事前沿技术，以“五加二”、“白加黑”的工作热忱，在电磁发射技术(Electromagnetic launch technology)领域埋头潜心研究。先后主持和参与国防973、国家自然科学基金、国防预研、军口863等国家和国防科研项目10余项。在某重大项目攻关过程中，经过数百次失败和五万多次的科研试验，攻克了制约某特种电源(special power supply)发展的数十项瓶颈技术，成功研制了世界上规模最大的连发型电源(first large-scale continuous uninterrupted power supply in world)，技术性能达到国际先进水平。”
> 
> “天道酬勤。某项国产新型武器装备第一次在船上试验就取得了成功(the first shipboard test of a type of new domestic weaponry succeed)。”



I can be sure, USN spy satellite are watching closely of such test.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clarkgap

clarkgap said:


> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/pyQ3AZxg3mjqF3y8F90Neg
> 
> Looks like the railgun has been tested.
> 
> 来自@星海军事：http://www.starmil.net/forum.php/forum.php?mod=viewthread& tid=1293
> 
> "张晓(Xiao Zhang)，海军工程大学舰船综合电力技术国防科技重点实验室副研究员(Associate Researcher of Ship's comprehensive power technological National Science Key Lab, PLA Naval University of Engineering)"
> 
> "作为一名奋战在军队院校科研战线的工作者，她瞄准世界军事前沿技术，以”五加二“，”白加黑“的工作热忱，在电磁发射技术(electrmagnitic launch technology)领域埋头潜心研究。先后主持和参与国防973，国家自然科学基金，国防预研，军口863等国家和国防科研项目10余项。在某重大项目攻关过程中，经过数百次失败和五万多次的科研试验，了攻克制约某特种电源(special power supply)发展的数十项瓶颈技术，研制成功了世界上规模最大的连发型电源(first large-scale continuous uninterrupted power supply in world)，技术性能达到国际先进水平"。
> 
> "天道酬勤。某项国产新型武器装备第一次在船上试验就取得了成功(the shipboard test of a new domestic weaponry succeed)。"
> 
> http://www.bioon.com/z/nsfc2015/nsfc.asp?p=%D5%C5%CF%FE&qorder=cost
> 
> 导轨式电磁发射装置(rail-style EMALS)用新型混合储能技术(hybrid energy storage technology)研究 - 张晓(Xiao Zhang) - 中国人民解放军海军工程大学(PLA Naval University of Engineering)
> 
> Dr. Zhang posted a journal on IEEE about hybrid energy storage system for railgun in 2015, this might be the early research. Here is the introdunction:
> 
> “Chemical stored energy + physical stored energy” mode is adopted to increase instant power in new-style hybrid energy storage technology, which decreases the power need of shipboard railgun to power grid, this mode takes full advantages of high energy density for chemical stored energy and high power density for physical stored energy.The basic principle is that energy from power grid is firstly transferred to battery within a relatively long time, and then the energy is transferred to capacitors within a short time, after that capacitors discharge to electronic load quickly, accordingly the instantaneous power is amplified. Academician Ma Weiming from Naval University of Engineering put forward that shipboard railgun should use hybrid energy storage for power supply, and led the development of correlation studies.
> 
> And I upload the journal:



There is another journal that posted in 2017. However, ther size of the journal is too large that I cannot upload it. So I seperate it to two part:

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## mkiyani

wish Pakistan also starts some Kind Research or something on Railgun or laser tech ..


----------



## clarkgap

mkiyani said:


> wish Pakistan also starts some Kind Research or something on Railgun or laser tech ..



Laser tech is better choice. Pakistan can develope some laser-based countermeasure system for tank and helicopter.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

So the tests were carried out in the Yellow Sea close to...... 

http://mil.huanqiu.com/world/2018-03/11651055.html

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Wondering when "leaked" photos of the second and more powerful railgun/coilgun will make it to the Internet......

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## beijingwalker

*CHINA SAYS IT IS TESTING WORLD’S FIRST RAILGUN AT SEA, CONFIRMING LEAKED PHOTOS OF ELECTROMAGNETIC WEAPON*
BY TOM O'CONNOR ON 3/14/18 AT 1:25 PM
China has indirectly confirmed that it was testing what would be the world’s first warship-mounted railgun, a powerful electromagnetic weapon that even the U.S. Navy has struggled to bring to sea, according to official media reports.

China’s official military website published a report Thursday featuring Zhang Xiao, an associate research fellow at the People’s Liberation Army Navy University of Engineering. Zhang was described as a leading figure in Chinese efforts to develop “electromagnetic launching technology.”

She was also called a central part of Chinese Navy Rear Admiral Ma Weiming’s elite research team, which has contributed to some of the country’s top military achievements, including aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines, according to an article published Monday by Chinese Communist Party newspaper _The Global Times_. In the video, Zhang was awarded a National March 8 Red Banner for her recent accomplishments.

“After hundreds of failures and more than 50,000 tests,” Zhang successfully developed the largest “repeating power supply system” in the world, the report said, as translated by China’s ruling party organ on Monday.





One of several undated images widely shared on social media shows a device identified by analysts as an electromagnetic railgun mounted on Chinese Type 072III-class landing ship Haiyang Shan, at the Wuchang Shipyard in Wuhan, China. China has indirectly confirmed that it was testing what would be the world’s first warship-mounted railgun, a powerful electromagnetic weapon.SOCIAL MEDIA

A railgun is a weapon that abandons traditional gunpowder-based artillery for an electromagnetic charge capable of launching a projectile at devastating speeds and with deadly penetration. It creates a powerful electromagnetic field by supplying two conductive rails with an electric charge. When the projectile is placed in between, a physics phenomenon known as “the Lorentz force” blasts the object out at supersonic, or even hypersonic, speeds.

The unique workings of such a weapon give it a distinctive look, one strikingly similar to that of a large new gun mounted on China’s Type 072III-class landing ship _Haiyang Shan_ in images that surfaced online in January. Chinese military watchers were quick to identify what appeared to be railgun characteristics such as a short, stubby barrel and large containers ideal for housing the massive power station required to power the futuristic weapon.

Chinese military watcher and Twitter user @dafengcao, who found the images on Chinese social media website Weibo told _Newsweek _at the time that China was “still on the way to catch up to the Western countries, the railgun just embodied their great endeavor.” A high-profile, verified Weibo account identified as belonging to a retired Chinese navy officer confirmed these findings.

Despite the online buzz, Chinese state media remained quiet—until now. Such a weapon would embody Chinese President Xi Jinping’s campaign to enhance and modernize his country’s armed forces, challenging even the U.S.’s technological lead. The U.S. Navy has tested its own land-launched railgun since 2008 but has so far been unable to develop a seaborne variant of the costly project. The current weapon can launch projectiles at over 4,500 miles per hour.

As _The National Interest_ noted last month, however, the Navy has not yet abandoned its project, and China’s alleged innovation may only inspire the U.S. further.

Russia too has been working on its own railgun. In July 2016, scientists of the United Institute of High Temperatures at the Russian Academy of Sciences developed their country’s first electromagnetic railgun, according to the state-run Tass Russian News Agency. Like his Chinese counterpart, Russian President Vladimir Putin has also eyed a military buildup and unveiled a number of advanced weapons in a fiery State of the Nation address earlier this month.
http://www.newsweek.com/china-says-...gun-seen-leaked-warship-photos-stunned-844932

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Manidabest

sounds good!!!


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> View attachment 463603



Railgun speed of 2500 m/s and produces 32 MJ of muzzle energy. A bit behind the new BAe railgun, but a good start nonetheless.


----------



## atan651

It's going to be a force (weapon) to be reckoned with. Go China!

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

Akasa said:


> Railgun speed of 2500 m/s and produces 32 MJ of muzzle energy. A bit behind the new BAe railgun, but a good start nonetheless.



New BAE railgun? Where is it? shipboard yet?

We are here talking about shipboard/ready for deployment railgun.

As for land-based testbeds, 64MJ is NO problem.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Akasa

cirr said:


> New BAE railgun? Where is it? shipboard yet?
> 
> We are here talking about shipboard/ready for deployment railgun.
> 
> As for land-based testbeds, 64MJ is NO problem.



Why are you so concerned about it being shipborne when it can already match or out-shoot the Chinese railgun?

Where is the evidence that the Chinese are capable of building a 64 MJ weapon?


----------



## Beast

Akasa said:


> Why are you so concerned about it being shipborne when it can already match or out-shoot the Chinese railgun?
> 
> Where is the evidence that the Chinese are capable of building a 64 MJ weapon?


Of cos ship borne is important becos that means it is ready or combat readiness while BAE is only testing phase. I can bet BAE is not combat ready. Maybe after fired a dozen Rds and it exhausted the system and heavy maintenance require for it to work again.

While Chinese one is combat ready and is practical to be used in combat, capable of firing hundred over times.

In testing, you can have all kind of fantastic spec but when comes to operation all this spec is useless.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Dante80

Beast said:


> While Chinese one is combat ready and is practical to be used in combat, capable of firing hundred over times.



Hello. This is interesting, I was under the assumption that the Chinese rail gun system was not ready to be fielded yet, but started testing trials. No idea how advanced these are, but in any case you would need a platform for fielding it (I was under the assumption that the current PLAN main units do not have the electrical infrastructure to field said weapons, and that IPS systems in possible new 052 / 055 variants yet to be constructed would rectify this).


----------



## JSCh

From cjdby.net.
Photo said to be taken this morning around 9, ship moving down stream.

Reactions: Like Like:
9


----------



## cirr

JSCh said:


> From cjdby.net.
> Photo said to be taken this morning around 9, ship moving down stream.



A new round of shipboard tests under way

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## clarkgap

cirr said:


> New BAE railgun? Where is it? shipboard yet?
> 
> We are here talking about shipboard/ready for deployment railgun.
> 
> As for land-based testbeds, 64MJ is NO problem.



That report told about the land-base 32 MJ - 2500 m/s launch succession, not on ship.


----------



## Bussard Ramjet

Beast said:


> Of cos ship borne is important becos that means it is ready or combat readiness while BAE is only testing phase. I can bet BAE is not combat ready. Maybe after fired a dozen Rds and it exhausted the system and heavy maintenance require for it to work again.
> 
> While Chinese one is combat ready and is practical to be used in combat, capable of firing hundred over times.
> 
> In testing, you can have all kind of fantastic spec but when comes to operation all this spec is useless.




An ignorant question, but can someone clarify the advantages of Rail Guns over conventional chemical energy based weaponry and artillery? 

I used to think that cost was the main determinant because Rail Gun was substantially cheaper, however I was disabused of such notion when someone pointed out that one single round of a rail gun can cost upto a million USD. 

So perhaps someone can help clarify?


----------



## Dante80

Bussard Ramjet said:


> So perhaps someone can help clarify?



Taken as a starter, from English Wikipedia.


> Railguns are being researched as weapons with projectiles that do not contain explosives or propellants, but are given extremely high velocities: 2,500 m/s (approximately Mach 7 at sea level) or more. For comparison, the M16 rifle has a muzzle speed of 930 m/s , and the 16"/50 caliber Mark 7 gun that armed World War II American battleships has a muzzle speed of 760 m/s), which because of its much greater projectile mass (up to 2,700 pounds) generated a muzzle energy of 360 MJ and a downrange kinetic impact of energy of over 160 MJ.
> 
> By firing smaller projectiles at extremely high velocities, railguns may yield kinetic energy impacts equal or superior to the destructive energy of 5"/54 caliber Mark 45 gun Naval guns, (which achieve up to 10MJ at the muzzle), but with much greater range. This decreases ammunition size and weight, allowing more ammunition to be carried and eliminating the hazards of carrying explosives or propellants in a naval weapons platform. Also, by firing more aerodynamically streamlined projectiles at greater velocities, railguns may achieve greater range, less time to target, and at shorter ranges less wind drift, bypassing the physical limitations of conventional firearms: "the limits of gas expansion prohibit launching an unassisted projectile to velocities greater than about 1.5 km/s and ranges of more than 50 miles [80 km] from a practical conventional gun system."



There is more.



> Railguns are also being examined for use as anti-aircraft weapons to intercept air threats, particularly anti-ship cruise missiles, in addition to land bombardment. A supersonic sea-skimming anti-ship missile can appear over the horizon 20 miles from a warship, leaving a very short reaction time for a ship to intercept it. Even if conventional defense systems react fast enough, they are expensive and only a limited number of large interceptors can be carried.
> 
> A railgun projectile can reach several times the speed of sound faster than a missile; because of this, it can hit a target, such as a cruise missile, much faster and farther away from the ship. Projectiles are also typically much cheaper and smaller, allowing for many more to be carried (they have no guidance systems, and rely on the railgun to supply their kinetic energy, rather than providing it themselves).
> 
> The speed, cost, and numerical advantages of railgun systems may allow them to replace several different systems in the current layered defense approach. A railgun projectile without the ability to change course can hit fast-moving missiles at a maximum range of 30 nmi (56 km).
> 
> As is the case with the Phalanx CIWS, unguided railgun rounds will require multiple/many shots to bring down maneuvering supersonic anti-ship missiles, with the odds of hitting the missile improving dramatically the closer it gets.



Now...regarding the cost. You "spend" the following when firing a railgun.

1. Electricity.
2. Durability on the weapons platform (rail + supporting electrical apparatus).
3. Projectile.

The first one is assumed to be free from a cost point of view. If you have the juice, you hurl the projectile.
The second one is a factor observing a rounds fired (before destruction) to platform cost ratio.
The third one strictly depends on the projectile at hand. Currently, the projections for unguided projectiles give a very small cost. The projections for guided projectiles cannot be ascertained right now, but you can get a feel of the situation by reading what the current guidance development projects try to accomplish. For example, here is the USN RFP Navy SBIR 2012.1 – Topic N121-102, describing the specifications for making a guidance package for a railgun projectile:



> The package must fit within the mass (< 2 kg), diameter (< 40 mm outer diameter), and volume (200 cm3) constraints of the projectile and do so without altering the center of gravity. It should also be able to survive accelerations of at least 20,000 g (threshold) / 40,000 g (objective) in all axes, high electromagnetic fields (E > 5,000 V/m, B > 2 T), and surface temperatures of > 800 deg C. The package should be able to operate in the presence of any plasma that may form in the bore or at the muzzle exit and must also be radiation hardened due to exo-atmospheric flight. Total power consumption must be less than 8 watts (threshold)/5 watts (objective) and the battery life must be at least 5 minutes (from initial launch) to enable operation during the entire engagement. I*n order to be affordable, the production cost per projectile must be as low as possible, with a goal of less than $1,000 per unit.*

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

Bussard Ramjet said:


> An ignorant question, but can someone clarify the advantages of Rail Guns over conventional chemical energy based weaponry and artillery?
> 
> I used to think that cost was the main determinant because Rail Gun was substantially cheaper, however I was disabused of such notion when someone pointed out that one single round of a rail gun can cost upto a million USD.
> 
> So perhaps someone can help clarify?


US rail gun is just an experimental gun. It is not put into near service yet and due to the tremendous Joule or energy provided. After firing a few rounds will require massive overhaul or maintenance.

Just like F-22, it needs aircon hangar and repeat recoating just after few dozen hrs of flight. There is a reason why US defense wants to keep the number of F-22 at 187.

Chinese has very likely solve the problem of magnetic distribution consistent and minimize many parts small enough to fit onboard ship. They also managed to reach a point where their railgun is not as maintenance extensive like the BAE.

BAE prototype railgun spec is far superior than Chinese gun but it is also the very reason to cause such low usage lvl and high cost of their railgun that prohibit further testing.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## clarkgap

Beast said:


> US rail gun is just an experimental gun. It is not put into near service yet and due to the tremendous Joule or energy provided. After firing a few rounds will require massive overhaul or maintenance.
> 
> Just like F-22, it needs aircon hangar and repeat recoating just after few dozen hrs of flight. There is a reason why US defense wants to keep the number of F-22 at 187.
> 
> Chinese has very likely solve the problem of magnetic distribution consistent and minimize many parts small enough to fit onboard ship. They also managed to reach a point where their railgun is not as maintenance extensive like the BAE.
> 
> BAE prototype railgun spec is far superior than Chinese gun but it is also the very reason to cause such low usage lvl and high cost of their railgun that prohibit further testing.



Chinese Railgun is also an experimental one. And the muzzle energy of BAE's railgun is also 32 MJ.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

clarkgap said:


> Chinese Railgun is also an experimental one. And the muzzle energy of BAE's railgun is also 32 MJ.


The new CCTV documentary talking about the Chinese woman scientist of railgun , claim the railgun trial is a big success and will implement on warship very soon. That is the different between Chinese railgun and American railgun. I am sure the Chinese rail gun install onboard LST will be 99% similar when install onboard 055 cruiser.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## clarkgap

Beast said:


> The new CCTV documentary talking about the Chinese woman scientist of railgun , claim the railgun trial is a big success and will implement on warship very soon. That is the different between Chinese railgun and American railgun. I am sure the Chinese rail gun install onboard LST will be 99% similar when install onboard 055 cruiser.



Seriously? In my memory, the document about the woman scientist had been posted in the thread. And fzgfzy had said the railgun even will not be installed on the Early variant of 055B.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Beast

clarkgap said:


> Seriously? In my memory, the document about the woman scientist had been posted in the thread. And fzgfzy had said the railgun even will not be installed on the Early variant of 055B.


We also informed about Third carrier of PLAN will be using steam catapult by highly reliable insider. Guess what? PLAN skip steam and go straight for EMAL. I dare to bet with you, 055B will have railgun installed.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## Dante80

Assuming 055B integrates the IPS developed for 002, it would certainly have the juice to support a railgun system. The theoretical combined output of 4 QC-280s stretches far above 100MW as the first step of the system. In comparison, the Zumwalt-class Destroyer that is touted to be the only current USN combatant compatible with the electricity requirements for a railgun produces something shy of 80MW. 

I am under the impression though that this PLAN program will take a somewhat longer time to materialize.


----------



## Figaro

For all posters who still think that the National Interest is somewhat credible, let me give them a dose of their garbage ...
*Does China's Navy Really Have a Railgun? (Or Is It a Hoax?)*

Melodie Ha
April 5, 2018

In late January 2018, photos started circulating on social media showing a Chinese landing ship armed with a large gun turret fitted on its bow where the ship’s anti-aircraft turret would normally be. If confirmed to be a working prototype, China would be the first in the world to have a warship carrying an electromagnetic railgun (EMRG)—a new type of armament capable of posing a severe threat to U.S. forward-deployed forces. Despite sinking over $500 millioninto research and development, the U.S. Navy has thus far been unable to successfully produce the weapon. The absence of any information on the design and the testing of the railgun prototype from Chinese authorities, however, casts doubt on whether the People’s Liberation Army Navy’s (PLAN) prototype even works.

The development of rail guns and other directed-energy weapons are the future of maritime superiority. So, should the U.S. military be concerned about the Chinese ships with next-generation weapons? Until we see a fully operational Chinese railgun launch a projectile using electromagnetic energy, the answer is “no.”


An EMRG is a type of weapon that uses magnetic fields generated by enormous amounts of energy, rather than explosives, to fire warheads. The electricity launches an inert projectile up to 4,500 miles per hour (about Mach 8)—a velocity that would vaporize targets instantly through kinetic energy alone.

This Chinese development seems purposefully timed, as budget constraints recently compelled the U.S. Navy to reduce its EMRG program development. The United States has a long history and interest in these types of kinetic energy weapons, starting from the Reagan-era Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) in the 1980s. America launched a prototype in 2005 and consequently awarded two contracts to BAE Systems and General Atomics to build an EMRG. Both companies delivered their working prototypes in 2012, but the United States has not yet been successful in fitting a working EMRG onto a warship.

The Chinese have also been investing in electromagnetic weapons research since the 1980s, but they have only recently indicated significant progress. The PLA Naval University of Engineering asserts that China is capable of deploying railguns on its ships thanks to an integrated electric propulsion system (IEPS), a state-of-the-art technology on naval vessels that which is integral to powering an EMRG. Rear Admiral Ma Weiming, one of China’s top experts on electromagnetic technology, announced for the first time in October 2017 that the Chinese military had a confirmed railgun program. More recently in March 2018, a PLA-run news source confirmed that sea tests of China’s EMRG are underway at the annual National People’s Congress in Beijing.

Beijing has been investing in new high-tech weapons to change the maritime balance of power in the Asia-Pacific, where the United States currently has a strong forward presence. An EMRG would be a game changer in defending the PLAN’s surface ships against missiles, and greatly increases the survivability of the fleet. This electromagnetic technology would also assist the PLAN in sea control and amphibious operations—important considerations for Beijing as it tries to enforce its vast maritime territorial claims in the East China Sea and South China Sea.

If Beijing successfully develops what experts say could be a working rail gun, then China would have accomplished something the United States has been working on for more than a decade and has not yet achieved. But based on the current evidence, this is implausible for three reasons.

*First, there is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. China’s EMRG program is extremely young, and apart from vague proclamations from military officials that they have the ability to deploy such a weapon, we have not seen any proof of technical progress. *

Second, a photo of a weapon mounted on an old Chinese warship cannot prove its capability. The photo *could have easily been staged* and spread on social media to raise a buzz in both Chinese and U.S. security communities.

Third, it is likely that the Chinese could be posturing to drum up nationalism and show that they are indeed technically proficient enough to challenge the U.S. Navy in the Asia-Pacific region. As China grows more aggressive in the region and makes bold claims on territory, a public proclamation of the possession of a breakthrough weapon could be their way of showing force.

The United States maintains maritime superiority in the Asia-Pacific, both technologically and strategically. It is, however, worth keeping an eye on China’s rapidly modernizing forces and dedication to deploying next-generation weaponry and electromagnetic technology. As of now, the Chinese simply aren't there yet.

_Melodie Ha is a researcher with the Asia Pacific Security Program at the Center for a New American Security (CNAS)._



clarkgap said:


> Seriously? In my memory, the document about the woman scientist had been posted in the thread. And fzgfzy had said the railgun even will not be installed on the Early variant of 055B.


Yes, but it could certainly happen if tests go well. For instance, Fzgfzy did not believe that the 003 was going to be equipped with EM until last year ... things change.


----------



## Dante80

> First, there is no proof that the Chinese have figured out the technology for an operational rail gun on land, let alone the sea. China’s EMRG program is extremely young, and apart from vague proclamations from military officials that they have the ability to deploy such a weapon, we have not seen any proof of technical progress.
> 
> Second, a photo of a weapon mounted on an old Chinese warship cannot prove its capability. The photo could have easily been staged and spread on social media to raise a buzz in both Chinese and U.S. security communities.
> 
> Third, it is likely that the Chinese could be posturing to drum up nationalism and show that they are indeed technically proficient enough to challenge the U.S. Navy in the Asia-Pacific region. As China grows more aggressive in the region and makes bold claims on territory, a public proclamation of the possession of a breakthrough weapon could be their way of showing force.



None of the three arguments pass the scrutiny test in my honest opinion, irregardless of the actual state the PLA EMRG program is at. 

*1.* It is a pretty common fact in strategic analysis that China tends to publicly show (or let be seen) technology articles that are at least in the stage of active development. 

*2.* A photo of a test article installed in a ship does not prove capability. It also certainly does not prove a targeted misinformation campaign. The argument destroys itself. 

*3.* You cannot show force when there is no force in place to support your showing it. Political posturing is only effective when there is a fire behind the smoke. And over the years, the PLA has shown that maskirovka is a tertiary - at best - priority.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Jlaw

Figaro said:


> Melodie Ha



Enough said.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## Figaro

Dante80 said:


> None of the three arguments pass the scrutiny test in my honest opinion, irregardless of the actual state the PLA EMRG program is at.
> 
> *1.* It is a pretty common fact in strategic analysis that China tends to publicly show (or let be seen) technology articles that are at least in the stage of active development.
> 
> *2.* A photo of a test article installed in a ship does not prove capability. It also certainly does not prove a targeted misinformation campaign. The argument destroys itself.
> 
> *3.* You cannot show force when there is no force in place to support your showing it. Political posturing is only effective when there is a fire behind the smoke. And over the years, the PLA has shown that maskirovka is a tertiary - at best - priority.


Indeed. This is why most Western publications about Chinese military developments are unreliable. For every Chinese advancement, they either say it was stolen (via hacking) from the US or staged. The epitome of Western reporting ...



Jlaw said:


> Enough said.


And yet people still believe these crappy websites. Pretty sad honestly

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## pzkilo

Figaro said:


> Indeed. This is why most Western publications about Chinese military developments are unreliable. For every Chinese advancement, they either say it was stolen (via hacking) from the US or staged. The epitome of Western reporting ...
> 
> 
> And yet people still believe these crappy websites. Pretty sad honestly


Steal、copy、hack blablablabla, I usually wonder why most western publications are so fking stupid, but the most ridiculous thing that surprise me is western ppl believe it without doubt.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cirr

Performances:

length: under 10m
power consumption per discharge: 58KWh
conversion efficiency: circa 30%(room for improvement against the theoretical value of 50%)
muzzle energy: just under 64MJ
muzzle velocity: 2500m/s
projectile weight: 20km
when fired at high angle: max. altitude 160km, max. range 480km

I am not responsible for the validity of the above info.

Reactions: Like Like:
13


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## clarkgap

cirr said:


> Performances:
> 
> length: under 10m
> power consumption per discharge: 58KWh
> conversion efficiency: circa 30%(room for improvement against the theoretical value of 50%)
> muzzle energy: just under 64MJ
> muzzle velocity: 2500m/s
> projectile weight: 20km
> when fired at high angle: max. altitude 160km, max. range 480km
> 
> I am not responsible for the validity of the above info.



It is refer to an ideal railgun in a journal. Base on the data from 光华科技奖, the ground-base rialgun-prototype is still 32MJ.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

I'm curious, with that big gun, won't the recoil make the ship unbalanced? Or Railgun doesn't make a recoil when fired?


----------



## clarkgap

Brainsucker said:


> I'm curious, with that big gun, won't the recoil make the ship unbalanced? Or Railgun doesn't make a recoil when fired?



Conservation of momentum: m1*v1=m2*v2
The mass of projectile is approximately 10 kg, and tonnage of 072 is over 3700000 kg. You can determine that.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
7


----------



## cirr

Trials of a bigger more powerful(than the one revealed) railgun proceeding on schedule.

Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## terranMarine

cirr said:


> Trials of a bigger more powerful(than the one revealed) railgun proceeding on schedule.


holy moly

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## atan651

The trial will consist of trying out the new railgun on certain US carrier.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## TaiShang

Figaro said:


> This Chinese development seems purposefully timed, as budget constraints recently compelled the U.S. Navy to reduce its EMRG program development.



It is near to heresy to argue that the US military would have budget problems. They will have all sort of problems like corruption, inefficiency, and immoral behavior but they will not have money issues.

What do they want more? Trump just increased their budget for 60 billion USD?

Heck, when they cannot call it a failure, they give it a nicer name, this time, budgetary constraints. 

Pathetic.



Figaro said:


> This Chinese development seems purposefully timed, as budget constraints recently compelled the U.S. Navy to reduce its EMRG program development.



It is near to heresy to argue that the US military would have budget problems. They will have all sort of problems like corruption, inefficiency, and immoral behavior but they will not have money issues.

What do they want more? Trump just increased their budget for 60 billion USD. 

Heck, when they cannot call it a failure, they give it a nicer name, this time, budgetary constraints. 

Pathetic.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## samsara

TaiShang said:


> It is near to heresy to argue that the US military would have budget problems. They will have all sort of problems like corruption, inefficiency, and immoral behavior but they will not have money issues.
> 
> What do they want more? Trump just increased their budget for 60 billion USD?
> 
> Heck, when they cannot call it a failure, they give it a nicer name, this time, budgetary constraints.
> 
> Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> It is near to heresy to argue that the US military would have budget problems. They will have all sort of problems like corruption, inefficiency, and immoral behavior but they will not have money issues.
> 
> What do they want more? Trump just increased their budget for 60 billion USD.
> 
> Heck, when they cannot call it a failure, they give it a nicer name, this time, budgetary constraints.
> 
> Pathetic.


I just wanna highlight two main points briefly:

1) As long as the PETRODOLLAR Regime still prevails (thus propping the WRC status of the usd), it is NOT possible for the USG to run out of money (dollars), at least not at where it really matters for them. 
(Unless one does believe that they are having some problem with their "printing press")

2) The widespread FALLACY that it is not possible for the U.S. to be hindered by the technical/technological deficiencies due to its superiority in technological base!
Say it in other words, everything that every other nation can master, the U.S. should be able to. Only the physics that can limit their achievements. And this conjecture is the widely hold perception, even among the forum members here, let alone the general populace. The Hollywood and their media dominance definitely have their own credits here.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## UserUnknown2025

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 477197
> View attachment 477198


Is this the same ship we saw in February?


----------



## terranMarine

UserUnknown2025 said:


> Is this the same ship we saw in February?


most likely


----------



## cirr

401所研制强磁环境直流有刷电机

近日，401所微特电机事业部向某单位交付一种新型直流有刷电机，*该电机应用于中国最新的电磁武器系统中*，除基本性能要求外，还有耐*强磁场环境*和*强冲击环境*的特殊环境适应性要求。*该产品应用于我国最新的电磁武器系统中*，需求量较大。用户通过对前期产品的验证和多家产品性能对比，指定该所微特电机事业部作为唯一的产品承制方。（邓南）

https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz ... HtJju07B2Xu7m8XK#rd

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## cirr

cirr said:


> 401所研制强磁环境直流有刷电机
> 
> 近日，401所微特电机事业部向某单位交付一种新型直流有刷电机，*该电机应用于中国最新的电磁武器系统中*，除基本性能要求外，还有耐*强磁场环境*和*强冲击环境*的特殊环境适应性要求。*该产品应用于我国最新的电磁武器系统中*，需求量较大。用户通过对前期产品的验证和多家产品性能对比，指定该所微特电机事业部作为唯一的产品承制方。（邓南）
> 
> https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz ... HtJju07B2Xu7m8XK#rd



*New motor to be used for classified weaponry*

2018-06-20 09:43:06 Global Times Editor : Li Yan

China has produced a new type of electric motor that would meet the heavy demand from China's latest electromagnetic weapon system, which may involve electromagnetic railgun and ballistic missile technologies, said an expert.

Academy of Aerospace Solid Propulsion Technology under China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation has recently delivered a batch of newly developed brushed DC electric motors to an unnamed unit. The motors will be used in China's latest electromagnetic weapon system and are under heavy demand, reads an article published by the academy on WeChat on June 10.

The new motors can operate in special environments including in high-intensity magnetic fields and are resistant to strong blasts, according to the article.

A staff member in charge of publicity at the academy confirmed the news to the Global Times on Tuesday but refused to provide further information.

The delivery marks China's constant improvement on DC electric motors, Song Zhongping, a military expert and TV commentator, told the Global Times on Tuesday, noting the recent technological advancement was a challenging one.

The electromagnetic weapon system that needs the motors might be China's electromagnetic railgun. Other weapons that need a servo mechanism, such as ballistic missiles, may also require such motors, said Song.

The Chinese Navy will likely be the first in China to equip vehicles with an electromagnetic railgun. Type 055, China's first domestically developed 10,000-ton class missile destroyer, would be a great fit, said Song.

Photos spread on the internet since January 30 showed that a Type 072 III landing ship of the People's Liberation Army Navy was equipped with a main gun that is suspected to be an experimental electromagnetic railgun, reported Science and Technology Daily on February 5.

An electromagnetic railgun can fire projectiles via electromagnetic force at incredibly destructive velocity. It can reach farther ranges compared with standard artillery and maintain high accuracy, said Song.

However, the words "heavy demand" does not necessarily mean that China's electromagnetic railgun has entered mass production phase, said Song, noting that the heavy demand could come from anywhere since the brushed DC electric motors are widely used in weaponry.

http://www.ecns.cn/news/military/2018-06-20/detail-ifyvmiee7350138.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

*U.S. Intel Says China To Have Railgun-Armed Ships By 2025*

*A U.S. intelligence review offers new details about a Chinese prototype electromagnetic weapon that first appeared in public earlier in 2018.*

BY JOSEPH TREVITHICKJUNE 21, 2018

In January 2018, pictures appeared on social media of the _Haiyang Shan_, one of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army Navy’s Type 072III-class landing ships, packing an experimental electromagnetic railgun in a huge turret on its bow. Now, the U.S. Intelligence Community reportedly believes this weapon, or one similar to it, will be operational onboard one of China’s warships by 2025.

CNBC was first to report on the U.S. intelligence analysis of the Chinese program on June 21, 2018. In March 2018, China’s state-run media had confirmed that the _Haiyang Shan_ was conducting at-sea tests of the weapon, which had already gone through thousands of tests on land, but offered few specific details about its capabilities. China's interest in electromagnetic weapons dates back at least to the 1980s, but it has been claiming to have made especially significant strides in recent years.

The official U.S. review reportedly says the Chinese electromagnetic cannon can hit targets nearly 125 miles away and fires projectiles at more than seven times the speed of sound. If accurate, this would mean the weapon would be able to strike targets out to its maximum range in a timeframe best measured in seconds.

This is significantly further than the maximum range of any modern naval guns and way faster than even advanced anti-ship and land-attack cruise missiles. It also means that it is capable of lobbing projectiles faster than the U.S. Navy’s own prototype design, which has yet to go to sea.





CHINESE INTERNET
A low-quality image of the _Haiyang Shan,_ with its experimental railgun under wraps, in January 2018.

It’s the kind of potentially game-changing capability that has made the idea of a practical railgun attractive for navies and ground forces around the world for decades. Chinese ships with these weapons would be able to engage targets across a much broader area, potentially increasing the vectors of attack an enemy force at sea or on land might have to worry about and disrupting their plans.

The ships would also be more flexible and better able to quickly shift their attention to emerging threats and fleeting targets. In theory, electromagnetic guns are especially well suited to that latter category of time-sensitive strikes, since they are so hard to defend against, striking with almost no warning and giving an opponent little chance to move critical assets or evacuate from key sites.

Given the high speed of the projectiles they fire, the weapons could potentially take on other roles in the future, too. The U.S. Navy has envisioned its ships using railguns to shoot down manned and unmanned aircraft and incoming cruise and ballistic missiles.





USN
An official US Navy graphic showing the possible missions for the service's future electromagnetic railguns and traditional weapons firing a similar, hyper-velocity projectile.

According to CNBC’s report, the rounds that the Chinese have been using cost approximately between $25,000 and $50,000 each. This would make them more expensive than standard naval gun shells, but cheaper than projectiles with GPS or other guidance packages that would work in those same weapons. No cannon firing typical ammunition of any kind would be able to match the railgun’s range though and this price point is significantly cheaper than any sub- or supersonic sea-launched cruise missile.

It’s also cheaper than the present price of the Navy’s experimental Hyper Velocity Projectile, or HVP, which has a unit cost of around $86,000. That service, together with the U.S. Army and Marine Corps, is hoping to use this round to get speeds of at least Mach 3 out of existing naval guns and ground-based howitzers. The maximum range of those weapons combined with the new ammunition still wouldn’t be anywhere near that of an actual railgun.





USN
A look at the potential capabilities of the HVP combined with various existing guns compared to the speed and range an actual railgun offers.

The possibility that China will be fielding operational, railgun-armed ships within the next decade could push the Navy to redouble its own efforts to develop an electromagnetic weapon. At present, the service doesn’t expect to conduct its own at sea test until 2019 at the earliest.

“China’s hypersonic weapons development outpaces ours … we’re falling behind,” U.S. Navy Admiral Harry Harris, then head of the top U.S. military command in the Pacific, told members of Congress in February 2018. “We need to continue to pursue that and in a most aggressive way to ensure that we have the capabilities to both defend against China’s hypersonic weapons and to develop our own offensive hypersonic weapons.”

The CNBC report does not say what ship or ships the Chinese plan to install the railgun on operationally. Historically, the limiting factors for railguns have been the immense power they require.

In turn, this requires additional space to house the elaborate electrical infrastructure and the equipment necessary to keep everything, including the weapon itself, cool during sustained firing. The experimental turret on the _Haiyang Shan_ is already significantly bigger than any other large caliber gun mounts in the Chinese fleet.





CHINESE INTERNET
The huge turret housing the prototype railgun on the _Haiyang Shan._

The range the railgun offers might allow China to consider deploying it operationally on an amphibious warfare vessel, such as the Type 072III, or even a logistics ship. A striking distance of more than 120 miles could put them out of range of most immediate counterattacks and they could also operate within the safety of a larger surface task force. Of course, The U.S. Navy, among others, is in the process of developing a hypersonic sea-launched anti-ship missile, called Sea Dragon, which would be able to quickly respond to the threat posed by a railgun equipped ship.

If China has truly developed a practical naval railgun, they could look to install additional examples, or derivatives thereof, in land-based mounts, as well. The U.S. Army is similarly developing its own electromagnetic cannon to support ground operations in a way it simply cannot do with traditional artillery and missile systems.

If the Chinese were to deploy these weapons on their various man-made outposts in the South China Sea, it would only further limit the ability of a potential opponent to operate in that region. If the system were at all mobile or air transportable it could be even more flexible in a ground-based role. 

Whatever concepts of operation the Chinese might be considering, what is clear is that the country is rapidly expanding both the size and capability of its naval forces. The electromagnetic railgun project is itself tangential to reports of work on an electromagnetic aircraft catapult system that China could install in its next domestically produced aircraft carrier.

On June 20, 2018, new computer generated imagery emerged online that showed a future carrier in a catapult-assisted take-off but arrested recovery (CATOBAR) configuration. China’s two existing aircraft carriers both have a short take-off but arrested recovery (STOBAR) setup that features a large ski jump at the bow.

Type 003 CATOBAR CV official CGI. pic.twitter.com/l3ITyHf4EV

— dafeng cao (@xinfengcao) June 20, 2018
The expansion of the People’s Liberation Army Navy, or PLAN, goes far beyond flattops, though. China is building surface ships, submarines, and other craft at a prodigious rate. Our own Tyler Rogoway recently examined this build-up, writing:

“The fact that China has been able to realize such a massive expansion of its naval forces, both in terms of quality and quantity, prompts the big question: what will the PLAN look like in _another_ decade? 

This haunting concern is one of the largest driving factors behind the U.S. Navy's 355 ship fleet ambitions, which are going to be a major challenge to realize without a dramatic restructuring of its procurement priorities, existing fleet sustainment practices, and facilities management. 

“With the Pentagon's shift to 'great power competition' under Secretary Mattis, and with China now America's top technological peer competitor, its ever-strengthening Navy is sure to cast a long shadow on the DoD's list of priorities. But if things continue to go as they are, and with a catapult equipped Chinese aircraft carrier, and possibly a nuclear one as well, on the horizon, the days of America's _outright_ supremacy on and below the high-seas may be coming to an end.”

If the PLAN's fleets actually include any significant number of railgun-equipped ships by 2025, as the U.S. intelligence assessment warns, it is even more likely that the era of near total United States naval supremacy in any prospective conflict, especially in Pacific Region, will have come to a close.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/21/chi...naval-gun-by-2025-us-intelligence-report.html

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 帅的一匹

it can hit a target 200KM away by flying at 2.5Km per second.


----------



## cirr

*清华电机系于歆杰教授获代表国际电磁发射领域最高技术贡献的皮特·马克奖章*
*
清华新闻网6月26日电* 6月21日，在由法德圣路易斯联合实验室（French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis）承办的第19届国际电磁发射大会（19th Electromagnetic Launch Technology Symposium）上，电机系于歆杰教授获颁代表在电磁发射技术领域作出杰出贡献的“皮特·马克奖章”（Peter Mark Medal for Outstanding Contribution to Electromagnetic Launch Technology），以表彰其在高储能密度脉冲电源模块研制和脉冲功率技术科学传播等方面的贡献。






国际电气和电子工程师协会资深会员伊恩·麦克纳布（Ian McNab）为于歆杰教授领奖

国际电磁发射大会是电磁发射领域最高级别会议，每两年举办一次。美国普林斯顿大学已故教授皮特·马克是美国电磁发射计划创始人之一。国际电磁发射大会于1983年设立“皮特·马克奖章”，旨在表彰在电磁发射领域做出的杰出技术和教育贡献的研究者。该奖章在每次国际电磁发射大会上颁发给1人，是国际电磁发射领域最高技术贡献奖。






于歆杰教授荣获的皮特·马克奖章

于歆杰教授近年一直致力在电磁发射用脉冲电源方向上开展深入研究，提出多种新型电感储能型脉冲电源电路拓扑结构，研制的高容量脉冲电源模块具有国际领先的储能密度。在脉冲电源系统方面，提出多模块电源系统的结构和参数优化设计方案以及电枢速度开/闭环控制策略。于歆杰教授任中国电工技术学会电磁发射技术专委会副主任委员，国际电磁发射大会常任委员会委员，两次应邀在国际电磁发射大会上作大会报告，指导的研究生多次获得国际/国内会议论文奖或青年学者奖。

同日，清华大学电机系博士生刘旭堃获“欧洲电磁发射协会青年学者奖”（European Electromagnetic Launch Society Young Researcher Award）。该奖于今年首次设立，本次共颁给2名获奖者。

http://news.tsinghua.edu.cn/publish...114014836407477/20180625114014836407477_.html

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

*4、突破了磁轨炮用超长水冷轨道的高强异种铜合金搅拌摩擦焊接技术*

磁轨炮是利用电磁发射技术的先进装备，采用高强镍铬硅铜/铬锆铜异种合金对接焊而成的超长铜轨道的高性能焊接是其关键。因对接焊两边金属材料强度和特性不同，产热、散热以及组织流动性不一致，对焊头材料及焊接工艺等提出了更高要求。






*成功焊接了超长高强镍铬硅铜与铬锆铜合金水冷轨道*，水密实验达到7.5MPa(设计要求5.0MPa），为我国磁轨炮研发提供了关键焊接技术支持。

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

Electromagnetically launched rockets.

tick tock, tick tock......

目前，由韩珺礼领衔研发的新一代野战火箭呼之欲出，那就是电磁弹射火箭弹武器系统。这个新成果，将我国的火箭优势技术和电磁弹射技术整合起来，实现跨界研究。

韩珺礼是如何“跨界”的呢？事情得从2017年初说起。

彼时，韩珺礼去武汉调研，顺道拜访了被誉为“中国电磁弹射之父”的马伟明院士。

在和马伟明交谈时，韩珺礼突然灵光一闪，问道：“马院士，既然电磁弹射技术能把几十吨重的飞机弹射出去，能否弹射火箭弹？让火箭弹在起飞阶段就获得一个很高的初始速度。”马伟明略作思索回答：“可以试试，应该可以。”

就这样，一个野战火箭发展史上从未有过的设想诞生了。目前，电磁弹射火箭弹已取得重大技术突破，后续发展计划正在一一变成现实。

https://military.china.com/jsbg/11177786/20180730/32747796_all.html#page_2


----------



## cirr

Pickup truck spotting a small electromagnetic gun? Now I call that a modern fighting vehicle.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## ariez168

*



*

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## ZeEa5KPul

ariez168 said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> *


It's not a "bullet", it's an armour-piercing fin-stabilized discarding sabot round - a standard tank round fired by a standard chemical propellant. It has nothing to do with railguns/coilguns.

Pretty cool video, though. Don't be on the wrong end of one of these things.

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## Beast

From this video.. Full documentary.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## cirr

*China ‘developing electromagnetic rocket with greater fire range’*

*Programme’s lead scientist speaks of ‘substantial progress’ in devising a high-velocity rocket that can fly further from Tibet*

PUBLISHED : Sunday, 26 August, 2018, 8:00pm
UPDATED : Monday, 27 August, 2018, 6:59pm







China is developing the world’s first electromagnetic surface-to-surface rocket that offers greater fire range and could give its military an advantage in high-altitude regions like the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau, according to state media.

Details of the rocket system – such as its precise range and deployment schedule – remain unclear. But the programme’s lead scientist Han Junli told the state-run _Science and Technology Daily_ that “substantial progress” had been made on the rocket.

Conventional rockets rely on explosive powder for the initial push, but the new rockets will be launched using additional electromagnetic force, similar to the catapult launchers that China and the United States are developing for their next-generation aircraft carriers. The same technology is also used to develop rail guns.

China’s military fires up world first in revolutionary rail gun technology

An electromagnetic catapult system “can give the rocket a very high initial speed on its launching stage”, said Han, recalling his discussion with Rear Admiral Ma Weiming, the chief scientist of the PLA Navy’s electromagnetic technologies.

Some observers say that China’s next domestically built aircraft carrier – its second – is likely to be equipped with electromagnetic catapult launchers.

A rocket is a self-propelled artillery weapon. Increased velocity can expand its range.

“An electromagnetic catapult may also be able to help stabilise the rocket during launch and improve its accuracy,” said Zhou Chenming, a military expert based in Beijing.






While missiles usually have a greater fire range and better manoeuvrability, rocket artilleries are cheaper and could be fired in cluster salvoes to overwhelm a target.

The report suggested that the new electromagnetic rockets could be deployed in Tibet. With possibly hundreds of kilometres of range, from there they would be able to strike the heartland of India.

Han, who is stationed with a research institute of the ground force of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), described the project as the first of its kind in the world, and said it had been going steadily according to plan “with great breakthroughs”.





The PLA has widely deployed 300mm PHL-03 rockets, modified from the Soviet BM-30. Those have a flight range of around 150km (about 93 miles).

Although the actual range of the electromagnetic rocket being developed is unknown, it is believed to be much longer than any of the existing types.

China has also developed laser-guided rockets that can slightly amend their trajectory during flight, though they cannot actively search for targets the way a missile can.

Han, who has been involved in China’s military rocket research and development for more than 20 years, also focuses on ensuring superior firepower for any potential border conflict on the Tibetan Plateau.

China and India promise to keep peace on their border

“The plateau covers 26 per cent of China’s entire land territory,” he was quoted as saying. “Rockets deployed in the field can cause severe damage to any invader in hundreds of square kilometres.”

“It is like in boxing, the person who has longer arms and harder fists enjoys the advantage.”

He has collected first-hand data from the 4,000 metre-plus plateau and studied how to optimise the rockets for the high-altitude environment, where temperatures are extremely low in winter and the atmosphere is thin.





Much lower air pressure there – which could be about half of that at sea level – means less air friction during flight, and possibly a longer range.

However, thinner air also means less force that the tail fins can generate to control the rocket’s position during flight, greatly reducing its precision.

An electromagnetic catapult launcher, which stabilises the flight while increasing initial velocity, would make the rockets a much more powerful weapon, especially on the plateau.

Doklam a year on: Bhutan more worried about India than China

Han told _Science and Technology Daily_ it would be unnecessary to transport forward-deploy rockets all the way to the front line, which on the Tibetan plateau would be expensive. Instead, they could be fired from farther away in the vast plateau region.

Following an “incident on the border of the Tibetan plateau”, the report said, Han made a detailed plan targeting the unnamed adversary’s major military locations, marking PLA rocket deployments – including which types, their range and how many.

Three catapult launchers spotted in image of China's new aircraft carrier

It did not identify the incident, but last year, Indian and Chinese troops had a 73-day stand-off in Doklam, a trijunction border area the nations also share with Bhutan, after Chinese troops with construction vehicles and road-building equipment began extending an existing road southward.

Though both nations eventually announced their withdrawal from the disputed area, it was still the worst border dispute between the two Asian giants in decades.

Incidents have been rarely reported in recent years with other neighbours, although China also borders Pakistan and Nepal along the Himalayas.

“Rockets are much cheaper than missiles, although less accurate. If they are mass-deployed they can excel at saturation fire to create intensive destruction to a bigger range of area,” Zhou said.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/dip...eveloping-electromagnetic-rocket-greater-fire

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr



Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

Railgun was put out to sea early today for a new round of tests.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## YeBeWarned

Way to go China ...

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## JSCh

*Electromagnetic railgun to be equipped on Chinese warships ‘soon’: report*
By Liu Xuanzun Source:Global Times Published: 2019/1/3 17:53:16



An alleged experimental electromagnetic railgun equipped on a Chinese landing ship Photo: cctv.com

Chinese warships will "soon" be equipped with world-leading electromagnetic railguns, as breakthroughs have been made by the naval engineering team led by academician Ma Weiming in multiple related sectors, national television reported on Wednesday.

Ma, an academician at the Naval University of Engineering in Wuhan, Central China's Hubei Province, and his team have gained innovative results in electromagnetic launching technology with fully independent intellectual property, cctv.com reported.

The report came at a time when a Chinese landing ship, allegedly equipped with an experimental electromagnetic railgun, was caught on camera at an undisclosed location carrying out a trial run. However, the authenticity of the photo could not be verified.

In February, the same landing ship with the electromagnetic railgun was photographed in harbor, Beijing-based newspaper Science and Technology Daily reported.

Li Jie, a Beijing-based naval expert, told the Global Times on Thursday that China's electromagnetic railgun development has reached a mature stage after a series of tests.

If the recent trial run is true, it could be among the final tests before the weapon's delivery to the People's Liberation Army Navy, Li said.

An electromagnetic railgun can fire projectiles via electromagnetic force at incredibly destructive velocity. It can reach farther ranges when compared with standard artillery and maintain high accuracy, military experts said.

The US is also experimenting with the new weapon, but China will be the first country to actually equip it on a warship, according to the cctv.com report.

China's naval electromagnetic weapon and equipment have surpassed other countries and become a world leader, the report said.

Chinese military experts expect the Type 055, China's domestically made 10,000-ton class guided missile destroyer, to use the electromagnetic railgun.

Li said that the weapon could also be deployed on China's future aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

CCTV report below says it is railgun, I think the term "electromagnetic launcher" in the original report on which the CCTV report is based, is good for both railgun and electromagnetic catapult. 

*Electromagnetic gun will soon be equipped with domestic warships:*

http://news.cctv.com/2019/01/03/VIDEuuanFMvnEKFLSMysPUuM190103.shtml

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## cirr

电磁炮的研制单位是中国航天科工集团二院206所，发射体（炮弹）的研制单位是北京理工大学，火控系统的研制单位为中国船舶重工集团有限公司716所。

Reactions: Like Like:
6


----------



## cirr

The electromagnetic gun is more than what it appears to be as well as less than what it appears to be.

If you get my drift......

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

Open fire!
.
.
.
Any minute now.......

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## powastick

cirr said:


> The electromagnetic gun is more than what it appears to be as well as less than what it appears to be.
> 
> If you get my drift......


I don't get it.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## Zsari

*China just tested the world's most powerful naval gun, and US intelligence says it will be ready for warfare by 2025*

China tested the world's most powerful naval gun earlier this month and it's expected to enter China's arsenal by 2025, according to sources with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report.
The warship-mounted electromagnetic railgun was first seen in 2011 and underwent testing in 2014.
The Chinese are expected to complete at-sea testing by 2023.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/30/china-naval-gun-ready-for-warfare-by-2025-us-intelligence.html

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## cirr

*US Intel Confirm China Tests “World’s Most Powerful Railgun” At Sea*

By admin Posted on January 31, 2019







Just on the heels of an alarming recent Pentagon intelligence study which assessed that China “already leads the world” in key areas of advanced defense technology, CNBC reports a huge breakthrough concerning what’s long been rumored the most feared and devastating futuristic weapon in Beijing’s arsenal: it’s now successfully tested “the world’s most powerful naval gun” — the ultra high velocity electromagnetically powered railgun _—_ which is expected to be battlefield ready “by 2025, according to people with direct knowledge of a U.S. intelligence report.”





_Railgun spotted on Chinese vessel last year, via South China Morning Post_

Speculation has long surrounded China’s massive railgun, which uses electromagnetic energy instead of gunpowder or explosive propelled rounds, which was first seen in 2011 and reportedly went through testing and calibration to reach extended ranges in the years following.

However, western military planners were generally shocked by how rapidly the Chinese were able to advance the project to the point that by Dec. 2017, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) was able to mount it on a warship for sea testing _— _something no other country has accomplished and which the Pentagon hasn’t even come close to. US intelligence officials now say China will complete sea-testing of the railgun by 2023.

And the Pentagon has ample reason to worry given the railgun’s specs and capabilities. Citing intelligence sources and analysts, CNBC notes the weapon’s massive projectile can travel at a speed which would allow it to go a distance the equivalent of the length between Philadelphia and Washington in under 90 seconds.

The CNBC report describes China’s futuristic electromagnetic railgun as “capable of striking a target 124 miles away at speeds of up to 1.6 miles per second, according to the people who have knowledge of the intelligence report.”






This makes it the most powerful cannon to ever roam the high seas, and is now doing so ahead of schedule given prior US intelligence predictions. By comparison CNBC notes:

The U.S. Navy’s railgun, which is years away from being operational, remains a classified system still in development under the Office of Naval Research.

The gun can launch metal projectiles from dual electrified rails at a speed ranging from Mach 4 to Mach 7, making it capable of punching holes in enemy vessels or aircraft up to 150km away.

According to new intelligence cited in the CNBC report, the rounds used by the railgun cost between $25,000 and $50,0000 each, making it extremely cost effective in future operations. By comparison the US Tomahawk cruise missile has an estimated price tag of $1.4 million each.

What the hell is this? pic.twitter.com/sQDAsHd7A3

— dafeng cao (@dafengcao) January 31, 2018

As we previously reported Chinese media outlets, such as the state-affiliated _Global Times_, revealed last year in March that nearly two months after the first pictures of what was initially dubbed the “Yangtze River Monster” showed up online, the PLA began touting that it was “making notable achievements on advanced weapons, including sea tests of electromagnetic railguns.”

More recently Chinese ships were spotted with what appeared to be massive mounted railguns for sea-tests.

Long time no see, the railgun test ship is spotted undergoing sea trials these days. pic.twitter.com/WdxXkyYWrF

— dafeng cao (@dafengcao) December 29, 2018

“Chinese warships will ‘soon’ be equipped with world-leading electromagnetic railguns, as breakthroughs have been made … in multiple sectors,” China’s Global Times reported recently. The pro-Beijing newspaper proudly asserted that “China’s naval electromagnetic weapon and equipment have surpassed other countries and become a world leader.”

Both Russia and Iran have also reportedly been seeking to acquire their own railgun technology, according to US defense officials.

A future potential operational railgun roaming the South China Sea could given the PLA total dominance in a region increasingly growing hot as US ships and aircraft continue “freedom of navigation” operations, possibly provoking Beijing to assert itself and respond more aggressively.

http://aroundworld24.com/2019/01/31...na-tests-worlds-most-powerful-railgun-at-sea/



powastick said:


> I don't get it.



In short, the gun is more power wise and less size wise than people think.

Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
11


----------



## LKJ86

Video:https://m.weibo.cn/1346791571/4356019720704120

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## luciferdd

32MJ RAILGUN，MUZZLE VELOCITY 2500M/S.

Reactions: Like Like:
4


----------



## cirr

luciferdd said:


> 32MJ RAILGUN，MUZZLE VELOCITY 2500M/S.
> 
> View attachment 550502



> 32MJ according to my sourceS.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## 艹艹艹



Reactions: Like Like:
8


----------



## bahadur999

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1113434930359427072Other sources identify it as Type-072III and not 072II******

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86



Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## cirr

LKJ86 said:


> View attachment 560079



I want to know how development of electromagtic rocket system is progressing.

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## LKJ86

Via @利刃斩海飞剪艏 from Weibo

Reactions: Like Like:
1


----------



## juj06750

the railgun project seems also dead


----------



## Deino

juj06750 said:


> the railgun project seems also dead




Why do you think so?


----------



## serenity

Deino said:


> Why do you think so?



Because he is that false flagger who keeps talking garbage and trying to make Chinese seem like his posts.

Just simply making big claims is classic trait of certain south asian characteristics.

Reactions: Like Like:
5


----------



## qwerrty

just like drones, aesa radars and ai. china now making electromagnetic gun into a nothing special worthless backward technology. 

electromagnetic launch fire-extinguishing device.


https://imgur.com/JRJqlB3

Reactions: Like Like:
4 | Haha Haha:
4


----------



## siegecrossbow

qwerrty said:


> just like drones, aesa radars and ai. china now making electromagnetic gun into a nothing special worthless backward technology.
> 
> electromagnetic launch fire-extinguishing device.
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/JRJqlB3



Reminds me of how guys use lasers to trim tree branches.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1302463760389476353

Reactions: Like Like:
3 | Haha Haha:
4 | Wow Wow:
2


----------



## Brainsucker

qwerrty said:


> just like drones, aesa radars and ai. china now making electromagnetic gun into a nothing special worthless backward technology.
> 
> electromagnetic launch fire-extinguishing device.
> 
> 
> https://imgur.com/JRJqlB3



It is the different between USA and China. For US, those technology entirely for military purpose. But for China, they can use it for our daily life. That's why Chinese's drone industry, etc, get more successful than US ones.

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## Battlion25

This thread is gem first time noticing it here

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Polestar 2

siegecrossbow said:


> Reminds me of how guys use lasers to trim tree branches.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1302463760389476353


American only use those high tech system to take more lives while Chinese use them mainly for peaceful purpose and saving lives.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## nang2

Polestar 2 said:


> American only use those high tech system to take more lives while Chinese use them mainly for peaceful purpose and saving lives.


Don't fool yourself. All weapons are for violence and meant to take lives. Nothing peaceful about them at all. The only justified use of them is for self-defense. But even the idea of self-defense has been perverted throughout the history.

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------



## Beast

nang2 said:


> Don't fool yourself. All weapons are for violence and meant to take lives. Nothing peaceful about them at all. The only justified use of them is for self-defense. But even the idea of self-defense has been perverted throughout the history.


What trigger you by his message? You mean firefighting equipment and laser for cut trees are meant to take other people lives?

If the knife use in kitchen can killed , I guess u will claim the chef is violence too, right?

Reactions: Like Like:
3


----------



## MajesticPug

nang2 said:


> Don't fool yourself. All weapons are for violence and meant to take lives. Nothing peaceful about them at all. The only justified use of them is for self-defense. But even the idea of self-defense has been perverted throughout the history.



@Polestar 2 mentioned '_*high tech systems*_' for _peaceful _uses, then you changed his words to '*weapons*' to suit your agenda. Sorry where were you educated? Canada? No wonder...

Reactions: Like Like:
2


----------

