Is China Secretly Building Hypersonic Rail Gun?

[aigomorla]

Well I think japan has by far the best rail gun.

It shoots coins...

 

[Ventanni]

The US has evidently spent $500 billion on its own rail gun, but no deployment as of yet.

http://www.newsweek.com/china-secre...leaked-photos-first-hypersonic-railgun-798565

That figure is clearly a typo. If the development cost of the rail gun weapon systems was at $500B, it would be a major, major political issue, much like the F-35's. The US Navy yearly budget is only around $130-135B per year, so no way they're spending $500B on a rail gun. Even the research and development cost of the ultra expensive Ford class super carriers is only $10-15B. According to this article below, the current development cost is at $500 million, not billion, which sounds much more reasonable.

https://taskandpurpose.com/navy-electromagnetic-railgun-budget/

At the same time, I think it makes sense. This isn't an issue of the rail gun being a dead end, this is an issue of pure logistics. Currently the only warships in the fleet that can realistically operate the rail guns are the Zumwalts, and that's a large amount of cash for a weapon system that can only be operated on three warships. The alternative is to invest in the hyper-velocity rounds, which can be used on nearly all naval artillery currently available in the fleet. It can even be used in army field artillery, making the investment cost a no-brainer.

Once the Flight III Arleigh Burke class destroyers come fully online in the 2030's, we might see a resurrection in rail gun technology.

 

[Puffnstuff]

According to this article below, the current development cost is at $500 million, not billion, which sounds much more reasonable.

There are kids on YouTube who've developed their own man portable rail guns so it can't cost that much.

 

[Ventanni]

There are kids on YouTube who've developed their own man portable rail guns so it can't cost that much.

It doesn't work that way. Physics have a way of trolling us.

You can't compare a 1.25KJ handheld, battery operated rail gun design that doesn't annihilate its own components, let alone penetrate cardboard, to a 32MJ world class naval artillery design that does annihilate itself, penetrate multiple armored plates, and travel multiple kilometers down range while it's at it. That's like asking if we can build a 2-story house so easily, why can't we build a 200-story skyscraper at a linear cost level? Hardly comparable, and the physics of scaling do not work that way.

Although I won't argue with you on the inefficiencies of the US military industry, $500M seems reasonable for what its trying to accomplish. China will have the exact same issue we have with using rail gun technology. Once you figure out the gun barrel part, what are you going to field the weapon on? My guess is they're going to use these on their new man made island fortresses where the power generation capabilities is much greater.

 

[Puffnstuff]

The cost difference is comparable with NASA vs. SpaceX where the latter is clearly more efficient and effective for each dollar spent. With rumors of a Chinese market meltdown looming they might be penny pinching before long as well.

 

[Ventanni]

Not arguing the efficiency of money spent. Fully agree with you there. The US military industrial complex is well known for its extravagant waste.

But I am making a point on the physics of scale. Creating a fully operation, multi-use 32MJ rail gun that doesn't destroy itself after a few shots is going to pose some serious and potentially expensive challenges, and the Chinese will be susceptible to the same physics in creating that as we are.

But, back to reality. We have 3 potential ships capable of actually mounting and using one. US warhips simply don't have the current infrastructure to operate these weapons, so it's a moot point.

 

[IronWing]

US warhips simply don't have the current infrastructure to operate these weapons, so it's a moot point.

Add some solar panels and a windmill on the stern and we're good to go.

 

[pauldun170]

We spent money developing it and due to limited budgets Navy decided that they can put a hold on the project.
Considering the issues they were having with durability and that the value add wasn't as much as anticipated AND the current landscape its the right decision.
The money spent was not wasted because tech\techniques\ and munitions have a lot of value. They are moving forward on the munitions that came out of this program. The lessons learned on power generation, munitions and materials are extremely valuable.
https://news.usni.org/2016/07/18/pe...uns-change-paradigm-missile-defense-navy-army
They are going to spend the money on higher priority work and then revisit when the time is right.

China has a habit of sinking money into "#meToo" projects. Basically looking at what everyone else is doing and spinning up a project.
They can put a railgun on a ship.
They have to reliably supply power to it
They have launch a projectile without breaking stuff.
They still have the to deal with durability, targeting and all the other challenges involved.
Firing one or two projectiles is great. In practice its useless if the system is dead weight after 3 shots.

The focus should sometimes be on capability, not individual technology.
Railgun that launches 4 projectiles at mach 6 that lack precision and falls apart after the 4th shot vs dozens of conventionally deployed MVP that travels at mach 3 and hits the target.
This plus accompanying missiles that also hit the target.

Railgun sounds cooler and if done right is a cost effective solution.

 

[Puffnstuff]

But, back to reality. We have 3 potential ships capable of actually mounting and using one. US warhips simply don't have the current infrastructure to operate these weapons, so it's a moot point.

I know what you mean. That thing has some mean recoil to it.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/8594/watch-the-u-s-navy-test-fire-its-much-touted-railgun

 

[IronWing]

I know what you mean. That thing has some mean recoil to it.

Physics is so inconvenient.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Physics is so inconvenient.

That BAE unit is the small one and the General Atomics is the big one. I would imagine that its recoil might be comparable to some of the large caliber guns normally reserved for pocket battleships and larger.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Fast forward a few hundred years....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OUssuvj5A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq0xETavaN0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS4vzoQm_xw

 

[realibrad]

Question, what kind of heat is that projectile subjected to?

 

[realibrad]

You should never trust atoms. They make up everything.

This might seem rather dark, and I hope you get the gravity of this comment, but I dont have the energy to explain what is wrong with this joke.

 

[Ventanni]

Fast forward a few hundred years....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_OUssuvj5A

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq0xETavaN0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS4vzoQm_xw

Haha, I actually watched the videos. For a science fiction show, it's believable for what might be developed in that time frame. I was a little thrown off by the 2nd video though where the guy is trying to offer a joint to the navy dude for freaking out, and then you hear a "dink", and the camera pans back to show his head being blown off and everyone watching. Had that been semi-realistic, everyone in that room would have been melted and incinerated by the spalling damage the rail gun rounds created while piercing through the hull (like what a modern AP round from an M1 Abrams does today).

Modern weaponry is naaasssstttyyyy!

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Haha, I actually watched the videos. For a science fiction show, it's believable for what might be developed in that time frame. I was a little thrown off by the 2nd video though where the guy is trying to offer a joint to the navy dude for freaking out, and then you hear a "dink", and the camera pans back to show his head being blown off and everyone watching. Had that been semi-realistic, everyone in that room would have been melted and incinerated by the spalling damage the rail gun rounds created while piercing through the hull (like what a modern AP round from an M1 Abrams does today).

Modern weaponry is naaasssstttyyyy!

I'll chalk that one up to acceptable 'artistic license'.

BTW, the third season of The Expanse should be coming out this Summer for those who might be interested. And to minimize likely confusion, I highly recommend reading each book (7 book series) before watching the respective season.

 

[Darwin333]

It doesn't work that way. Physics have a way of trolling us.

You can't compare a 1.25KJ handheld, battery operated rail gun design that doesn't annihilate its own components, let alone penetrate cardboard, to a 32MJ world class naval artillery design that does annihilate itself, penetrate multiple armored plates, and travel multiple kilometers down range while it's at it. That's like asking if we can build a 2-story house so easily, why can't we build a 200-story skyscraper at a linear cost level? Hardly comparable, and the physics of scaling do not work that way.

Although I won't argue with you on the inefficiencies of the US military industry, $500M seems reasonable for what its trying to accomplish. China will have the exact same issue we have with using rail gun technology. Once you figure out the gun barrel part, what are you going to field the weapon on? My guess is they're going to use these on their new man made island fortresses where the power generation capabilities is much greater.

Which would probably suit their needs just fine, they are far more concerned with gaining the ability to deny access to the South China Sea than they are of a naval fleet that can project power globally, at least for the time being.

 

[Darwin333]

Not arguing the efficiency of money spent. Fully agree with you there. The US military industrial complex is well known for its extravagant waste.

But I am making a point on the physics of scale. Creating a fully operation, multi-use 32MJ rail gun that doesn't destroy itself after a few shots is going to pose some serious and potentially expensive challenges, and the Chinese will be susceptible to the same physics in creating that as we are.

But, back to reality. We have 3 potential ships capable of actually mounting and using one. US warhips simply don't have the current infrastructure to operate these weapons, so it's a moot point.

Don't worry, Trump will just tell them to bolt a nuclear reactor to the deck to power them!

 

[BurnItDwn]

Lol, everyone knows a rail gun looks like this!

 

[werepossum]

It doesn't work that way. Physics have a way of trolling us.

You can't compare a 1.25KJ handheld, battery operated rail gun design that doesn't annihilate its own components, let alone penetrate cardboard, to a 32MJ world class naval artillery design that does annihilate itself, penetrate multiple armored plates, and travel multiple kilometers down range while it's at it. That's like asking if we can build a 2-story house so easily, why can't we build a 200-story skyscraper at a linear cost level? Hardly comparable, and the physics of scaling do not work that way.

Although I won't argue with you on the inefficiencies of the US military industry, $500M seems reasonable for what its trying to accomplish. China will have the exact same issue we have with using rail gun technology. Once you figure out the gun barrel part, what are you going to field the weapon on? My guess is they're going to use these on their new man made island fortresses where the power generation capabilities is much greater.

Good point, although were the old Virginia-class cruisers still around, a practical rail gun would make an awesome complement.