• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cihna testing/deploying hypersonic electromagnetic rail gun

JacksinPA

JacksinPA

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Dec 3, 2017
Messages
26,290
Reaction score
16,771
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Why China’s ‘miracle’ railgun weapon should scare the U.S. navy - National | Globalnews.ca

China appears to be testing an experimental, warship-mounted railgun capable of punching a hole in an enemy aircraft carrier from up to 150 kilometres away, according to expert analysis of images on social media.

That’s roughly the distance from Toronto to Buffalo, N.Y., or half the distance from Calgary to Edmonton.
==============================================================
'The U.S., China and Russia have been in a race to develop the coveted railgun technology for over a decade, in hopes of using the science fiction-inspired weapon to gain an edge in naval combat.

Railguns use electromagnetic force to launch metal projectiles at supersonic speeds from Mach 4 to Mach 7, meaning they can shoot farther and do more damage than any gunpowder-propelled bullet. The weapon gets its name from two electrified rails that are used to launch the projectile.

Any warship with a working railgun would have the power to disable “almost any ship in very short notice,” according to Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute.'

No current defensive systems would be effective against railgun projectiles.
 
JacksinPA said:
Why China’s ‘miracle’ railgun weapon should scare the U.S. navy - National | Globalnews.ca

China appears to be testing an experimental, warship-mounted railgun capable of punching a hole in an enemy aircraft carrier from up to 150 kilometres away, according to expert analysis of images on social media.

That’s roughly the distance from Toronto to Buffalo, N.Y., or half the distance from Calgary to Edmonton.
==============================================================
'The U.S., China and Russia have been in a race to develop the coveted railgun technology for over a decade, in hopes of using the science fiction-inspired weapon to gain an edge in naval combat.

Railguns use electromagnetic force to launch metal projectiles at supersonic speeds from Mach 4 to Mach 7, meaning they can shoot farther and do more damage than any gunpowder-propelled bullet. The weapon gets its name from two electrified rails that are used to launch the projectile.

Any warship with a working railgun would have the power to disable “almost any ship in very short notice,” according to Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute.'

No current defensive systems would be effective against railgun projectiles.
Click to expand...

I hope they realize we will shoot back.

They realize they cannot attack a US warship in international waters. Obama sent the wrong signsls. To wit: the best days of the USA are over.

There is a lot of classified research going on with this, and China’s claims are suspect due to the power required.
 
JacksinPA said:
Why China’s ‘miracle’ railgun weapon should scare the U.S. navy - National | Globalnews.ca

China appears to be testing an experimental, warship-mounted railgun capable of punching a hole in an enemy aircraft carrier from up to 150 kilometres away, according to expert analysis of images on social media.

That’s roughly the distance from Toronto to Buffalo, N.Y., or half the distance from Calgary to Edmonton.
==============================================================
'The U.S., China and Russia have been in a race to develop the coveted railgun technology for over a decade, in hopes of using the science fiction-inspired weapon to gain an edge in naval combat.

Railguns use electromagnetic force to launch metal projectiles at supersonic speeds from Mach 4 to Mach 7, meaning they can shoot farther and do more damage than any gunpowder-propelled bullet. The weapon gets its name from two electrified rails that are used to launch the projectile.

Any warship with a working railgun would have the power to disable “almost any ship in very short notice,” according to Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute.'

No current defensive systems would be effective against railgun projectiles.
Click to expand...


We dont need to retrofit our ships currently as we have the projectiles developed for the RG that also happen to work well in a regular gun.
 
chuckiechan said:
I hope they realize we will shoot back.

They realize they cannot attack a US warship in international waters. Obama sent the wrong signsls. To wit: the best days of the USA are over.

There is a lot of classified research going on with this, and China’s claims are suspect due to the power required.
Click to expand...

We are using the shells developed for the program in the conventional guns. They apparently work really well.
 
150km seems like a long distance, but I'm reasonably certain it's well within the detection\patrol radius for a carrier group. I've read that the magnetic spike from firing one of these is very detectable at long range. No one is sneaking us on anyone with this thing.

And high velocity\small projectile doesn't exactly translate into critical damage for carriers. Those things are built to take quite a beating.

Finally, while it may not exist today and might present a challenge, there's nothing preventing us from developing a countermeasure. An explosive round going off in close proximity is likely to disrupt the round enough to spoil any accuracy, same as just about any projectile. Might be as simple as a modification to existing anti-missile systems, though I doubt they'd miss a chance to buy a new system, that being the point of the exercise.
 
WillyPete said:
150km seems like a long distance, but I'm reasonably certain it's well within the detection\patrol radius for a carrier group. I've read that the magnetic spike from firing one of these is very detectable at long range. No one is sneaking us on anyone with this thing.

And high velocity\small projectile doesn't exactly translate into critical damage for carriers. Those things are built to take quite a beating.

Finally, while it may not exist today and might present a challenge, there's nothing preventing us from developing a countermeasure. An explosive round going off in close proximity is likely to disrupt the round enough to spoil any accuracy, same as just about any projectile. Might be as simple as a modification to existing anti-missile systems, though I doubt they'd miss a chance to buy a new system, that being the point of the exercise.
Click to expand...

The impact energy will be about that delivered by a tomahawk missile. Thats a good sized bang.
 
PirateMk1 said:
The impact energy will be about that delivered by a tomahawk missile. Thats a good sized bang.
Click to expand...

Sure, but my understanding is it has no 1000lb of explosives in it's warhead (no conventional warhead at all) so all that energy will be focused on the point of impact, and much of it wasted in overpenetration.

Don't get me wrong, I imagine it would be a hell of a show, but it seems like it'd be relative to getting hit by the world's fastest .22, compared to a grenade exploding next to your body. Neither is great, but I know which one I'd prefer.
 
JacksinPA said:
Why China’s ‘miracle’ railgun weapon should scare the U.S. navy - National | Globalnews.ca

China appears to be testing an experimental, warship-mounted railgun capable of punching a hole in an enemy aircraft carrier from up to 150 kilometres away, according to expert analysis of images on social media.

That’s roughly the distance from Toronto to Buffalo, N.Y., or half the distance from Calgary to Edmonton.
==============================================================
'The U.S., China and Russia have been in a race to develop the coveted railgun technology for over a decade, in hopes of using the science fiction-inspired weapon to gain an edge in naval combat.

Railguns use electromagnetic force to launch metal projectiles at supersonic speeds from Mach 4 to Mach 7, meaning they can shoot farther and do more damage than any gunpowder-propelled bullet. The weapon gets its name from two electrified rails that are used to launch the projectile.

Any warship with a working railgun would have the power to disable “almost any ship in very short notice,” according to Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute.'

No current defensive systems would be effective against railgun projectiles.
Click to expand...

WE have rail guns too... and missiles... and Navy SEALS.
 
WillyPete said:
Sure, but my understanding is it has no 1000lb of explosives in it's warhead (no conventional warhead at all) so all that energy will be focused on the point of impact, and much of it wasted in overpenetration.
Click to expand...

Kinetic kill warheads can do a tremendous amount of damage. However, that damage is primarily concentrated on the location where it hits. And because there is no warhead, it is now as large as damage caused by explosives.

That is why the US uses it on weapons to take out small targets. Like missiles, tanks, and aircraft.

It also suffers the disadvantage of being a direct fire weapon, with absolutely no guidance capability whatsoever. It is literally aimed at the time of firing, and will only follow that path. And the greater the distance, the greater the chance that your shot will miss. Atmospheric distortions, swells in the ocean (including the effect on both firing vessel and target), there are a great many factors that cause me to question these claims.

And this is typical of what we hear out of China. They make these huge claims, and rarely are the finished products even close to what was promised.
 
JacksinPA said:
Why China’s ‘miracle’ railgun weapon should scare the U.S. navy - National | Globalnews.ca

China appears to be testing an experimental, warship-mounted railgun capable of punching a hole in an enemy aircraft carrier from up to 150 kilometres away, according to expert analysis of images on social media.

That’s roughly the distance from Toronto to Buffalo, N.Y., or half the distance from Calgary to Edmonton.
==============================================================
'The U.S., China and Russia have been in a race to develop the coveted railgun technology for over a decade, in hopes of using the science fiction-inspired weapon to gain an edge in naval combat.

Railguns use electromagnetic force to launch metal projectiles at supersonic speeds from Mach 4 to Mach 7, meaning they can shoot farther and do more damage than any gunpowder-propelled bullet. The weapon gets its name from two electrified rails that are used to launch the projectile.

Any warship with a working railgun would have the power to disable “almost any ship in very short notice,” according to Justin Bronk, a research fellow at the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute.'

No current defensive systems would be effective against railgun projectiles.
Click to expand...

Ummmm, we have surface to surface and air to surface missiles that have a far longer range and believe me they would use plenty on any ship that used one on an American warship.
 
Oozlefinch said:
Kinetic kill warheads can do a tremendous amount of damage. However, that damage is primarily concentrated on the location where it hits. And because there is no warhead, it is now as large as damage caused by explosives.

That is why the US uses it on weapons to take out small targets. Like missiles, tanks, and aircraft.

It also suffers the disadvantage of being a direct fire weapon, with absolutely no guidance capability whatsoever. It is literally aimed at the time of firing, and will only follow that path. And the greater the distance, the greater the chance that your shot will miss. Atmospheric distortions, swells in the ocean (including the effect on both firing vessel and target), there are a great many factors that cause me to question these claims.

And this is typical of what we hear out of China. They make these huge claims, and rarely are the finished products even close to what was promised.
Click to expand...

That last part is not so true anymore, many of the munitions developed for our railgun are being transitioned to our conventional guns. Some of those munitions have guidance features integrated into them to help up the accuracy of said munitions. The new munitions bring the range of the standard 5" gun out to about 60+ miles right now. Thats why we have slowed up a bit on the rail gun. We still have problems of rail erosion on the current test system. Rail erosion to honest has pretty much been major downside of said system since the beginning.

The U.S. Navy Plans to Sink the Enemy by Using 'Railgun' Ammo in Old 5-Inch Guns | The National Interest
The U.S. Navy Quietly Tested Mach 3 Heavy Gun Shells That Could Revolutionize Surface Warfare
 
Rail guns would in my opinion be useless in naval combat against other ships. Sure the ammo will travel fast but it would still be a long travel time.

They would be more usefull in hitting hardened targets onshore. Cheaper and potentially more rounds on ship than missiles
 
It's another string to the bow. Another factor for any commander to consider.

There's no definitive "carrier killer", just an increasing array of weapons to choose from depending on circumstances/availability.
 
China's "carrier killer" ballistic missile hasn't ever been tested over seawater. No open ocean tests. Tested over lakes only in inland China. It's supposed to be a ballistic missile which would be what makes it effective in reaching its target over the horizon and capable of navigating to strike a moving carrier.

So it's yet another perfect Chinese weapons platform against which there's no defense. They're all perfect in fact. Same as Russia keeps announcing all these perfect weapons systems that are indefensible while Kremlin has even more perfect and indefensible weapons systems coming soon for sure positively absolutely almost ready now practically. Getting the final funding now they are...or pretty soon but yes for sure and without a doubt committed already.

CCP Boyz in Beijing have their three warfares as they call 'em: propaganda/information, lawfare, psychological. So far they're oh for three. They lost in The Hague and unanimously on the UNICLOS in the South China Sea in the big case filed by Philippines and argued by a Boston-Washington DC firm that's expert on it. Nobody believes Beijing's we're the good guys propaganda which means the Boyz are psyching themselves out only. Yep, China and Russia are invincible -- just ask 'em and they'll tell you.

Pentagon meanwhile rarely announces a radically new weapons system as any kind of big deal, if Pentagon announces it at all. We know about the F-35, USS Zumwalt, revolutionary new standard everyday weapons for Army and Marine Infantry, but while we can find out about our rail gun programs we have to beat the bushes to find it at obscure science journals. Pentagon and intelligence agencies holler all the time about Beijing cyberattacks but they likewise never or rarely announce the many US cyberattacks against Beijing and Moscow. Neither does Beijing or Moscow announce Pentagon / NSA etc cyberattacks cause it would leave Beijing and Moscow looking as exposed and helpless as they in fact are.

Kindly don't anyone accuse me of underestimating the enemy either because when people fall for the propaganda and psyche warfare of the enemy the tendency is to see the other guys as ten feet tall with brains bigger than their ass.
 
Tangmo said:
China's "carrier killer" ballistic missile hasn't ever been tested over seawater. No open ocean tests. Tested over lakes only in inland China. It's supposed to be a ballistic missile which would be what makes it effective in reaching its target over the horizon and capable of navigating to strike a moving carrier.

So it's yet another perfect Chinese weapons platform against which there's no defense. They're all perfect in fact. Same as Russia keeps announcing all these perfect weapons systems that are indefensible while Kremlin has even more perfect and indefensible weapons systems coming soon for sure positively absolutely almost ready now practically. Getting the final funding now they are...or pretty soon but yes for sure and without a doubt committed already.

CCP Boyz in Beijing have their three warfares as they call 'em: propaganda/information, lawfare, psychological. So far they're oh for three. They lost in The Hague and unanimously on the UNICLOS in the South China Sea in the big case filed by Philippines and argued by a Boston-Washington DC firm that's expert on it. Nobody believes Beijing's we're the good guys propaganda which means the Boyz are psyching themselves out only. Yep, China and Russia are invincible -- just ask 'em and they'll tell you.

Pentagon meanwhile rarely announces a radically new weapons system as any kind of big deal, if Pentagon announces it at all. We know about the F-35, USS Zumwalt, revolutionary new standard everyday weapons for Army and Marine Infantry, but while we can find out about our rail gun programs we have to beat the bushes to find it at obscure science journals. Pentagon and intelligence agencies holler all the time about Beijing cyberattacks but they likewise never or rarely announce the many US cyberattacks against Beijing and Moscow. Neither does Beijing or Moscow announce Pentagon / NSA etc cyberattacks cause it would leave Beijing and Moscow looking as exposed and helpless as they in fact are.

Kindly don't anyone accuse me of underestimating the enemy either because when people fall for the propaganda and psyche warfare of the enemy the tendency is to see the other guys as ten feet tall with brains bigger than their ass.
Click to expand...

A scud is a ballistic missile as is our Minuteman 3 ICBM. Our current Aegis radar and defense system with the Standard block 4 missiles can handle terminal and initial ballistic threats. All ballistic means is that the missile takes a ballistic trajectory. Gun rounds are ballistic weapons. unless the terminal phase warheads have some sort of maneuvering and guidance system they are useless against carriers unless they are just throwing nukes at em. Hell we can do that. Could since the 60's.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Rail guns would in my opinion be useless in naval combat against other ships. Sure the ammo will travel fast but it would still be a long travel time.

They would be more usefull in hitting hardened targets onshore. Cheaper and potentially more rounds on ship than missiles
Click to expand...

A lot more rounds actually. A railgun provided it engaging at its mid to long range which is 100-150 miles the travel time of a typical round would be less than 2.34 minutes and up to about 3 minutes on a time on target engagement. This presumes a projectile speed of just 3886mph.
 
PirateMk1 said:
A scud is a ballistic missile as is our Minuteman 3 ICBM. Our current Aegis radar and defense system with the Standard block 4 missiles can handle terminal and initial ballistic threats. All ballistic means is that the missile takes a ballistic trajectory. Gun rounds are ballistic weapons. unless the terminal phase warheads have some sort of maneuvering and guidance system they are useless against carriers unless they are just throwing nukes at em. Hell we can do that. Could since the 60's.
Click to expand...

Thx anyway and next time tell me something I don't already know and haven't known since Eisenhower was Potus. For example, a ballistic missile travels like a jump shot in basketball. Right into the hoop. It was the Ike administration that initiated the Pentagon First Offset Strategy of MAD that discouraged the Soviets initiating first use of nuclear weapons via their delivery platforms, i.e., intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yes, ballistic means it is ballistic so thx for that too.

I pointed out something you didn't know however, which is that the PLA "carrier killer" ballistic missile hasn't ever been tested out on the open sea. Beijing claims the ballistic missile has a navigation system that enables it to hit a moving carrier by adjusting its trajectory. Yet the "killer" ballistic missile with its supposed internal navigation system has been tested only over inland China lakes. PLA concludes each test by smashing the killer into a mountain or a high hill which doesn't prove anything either. So the Chinese can't demonstrate to themselves that their ballistic baby works much less to us.

In the meantime you're invited to discuss something else I mentioned in my post which is Beijing's "three warfares" which are propaganda, lawfare, psychological. If you can't do all three then one of your own choosing would be fine thx. I'd enjoy chatting with you at the same level up here.
 
Last edited:
Tangmo said:
Thx anyway and next time tell me something I don't already know and haven't known since Eisenhower was Potus. For example, a ballistic missile travels like a jump shot in basketball. Right into the hoop. It was the Ike administration that initiated the Pentagon First Offset Strategy of MAD that discouraged the Soviets initiating first use of nuclear weapons via their delivery platforms, i.e., intercontinental ballistic missiles. Yes, ballistic means it is ballistic so thx for that too.

I pointed out something you didn't know however, which is that the PLA "carrier killer" ballistic missile hasn't ever been tested out on the open sea. Beijing claims the ballistic missile has a navigation system that enables it to hit a moving carrier by adjusting its trajectory. Yet the "killer" ballistic missile with its supposed internal navigation system has been tested only over inland China lakes. PLA concludes each test by smashing the killer into a mountain or a high hill which doesn't prove anything either. So the Chinese can't demonstrate to themselves that their ballistic baby works much less to us.

In the meantime you're invited to discuss something else I mentioned in my post which is Beijing's "three warfares" which are propaganda, lawfare, psychological. If you can't do all three then one of your own choosing would be fine thx. I'd enjoy chatting with you at the same level up here.
Click to expand...

The thread is about the rail gun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom