World's First Naval Experimental Railgun to Undergo Sea Trial

You like laughing a lot don't you. :)


...and what does a railway gun run on?


No, it is still outdated technology. All that hard work to be taken out by a small guided missile. Yeah, really smart of the Chinese.


Are you fucking high?


ill say this...... china rail gun looks cheap and shitty.....


$



^ WTF? that thing is fat and huge. Our railgun is still in testing and appears to be getting smaller and we have the HVP ammo, im just lol if we loose a race with these fucks...
 
Last edited:
Is that big ass cannon for ship to ship fighting, or shore bombardment or what not?
 
Is it me or does the barrel of the ailgun on that Chinese naval ship look corroded?
 
Since it's Chinese I am not expecting much.
China relies heavily on copying, stealing and buying Russian and Western defense technology. So when and if railguns become a practical lethal alternative to traditional munitions, I would expect the first viable prototypes to come from the West.

Where the Chinese are the most innovative are with production scaling (and resulting efficiency) of their manufacturing technology. They developed a lot of their Solar tech in in Australia for instance, but it wasn't until the managed to massively increase scale and production efficiency back in China that the technology that was developed here really became viable.
Considering the difficulties the US has had with it's AGS platform, it's entirely possible that similar developments could make or break the viability of rail gun technology as well.
That said, I think it's actually the power draw and rail endurance that are the biggest hurdles to overcome.
 
Are you fucking high?

No, but I am serious. You are firing a projectile from a cannon, be it a chemical burn or an electromagnetic force. Outdated shit when a missile can do the job twice as better. Yeah, a catapult was also effective for its time. That thing looks stupid as shit on a Navy ship. It tells the world: 'Hey everyone, look at our huge obsolete cannon!'
 
Funny you talk about Falklands, because the British navy today doesn't have the capability to mount expeditionary campaign like that again.

Source? I think you are wrong.
 
No, but I am serious. You are firing a projectile from a cannon, be it a chemical burn or an electromagnetic force. Outdated shit when a missile can do the job twice as better. Yeah, a catapult was also effective for its time. That thing looks stupid as shit on a Navy ship. It tells the world: 'Hey everyone, look at our huge obsolete cannon!'

If you can get the required range, at a much reduced cost and with the improved capacity and lack of explosive propellant to store (be that rocket fuel or artillery shells) that makes a rail gun a viable alternative. They would presumably have both guided and unguided ammunition (as do current naval and artillery guns). The increase in speed also allows for the possibility of using a rail gun to shoot down cruise missiles at extended ranges.
 
If you're going to selectively cut and paste from Wikipedia -- you may want to actually spend sometime reading the whole article.

I did. You are 'back paddling' now. You clearly said 'never' existed. Well, they do, prototype or not.

Seriously, just read the article you pilfered from without sourcing.

No, I quoted it. If you want the source, just ask. Did you read it? Because it clearly proves your statement wrong. Read part 2. The history section.

"In 2010, history was made when BAE Systems (on behalf of the U.S. Navy) tested a compact-sized railgun designed for ship emplacement that accelerated a 3.2 kg (7 pound) projectile to hypersonic velocities (33-megajoules) of approximately 2.4 kilometres per second (8,600 km/h), about Mach 7."

Here is the source Mr. source man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railgun

Oh, I forgot, you already had the source. But you didn't read the whole article did you? Yeah, nice way to derail the topic by focusing on 'source' information. That usually happens when someone is 'butthurt'.

...the technology hasnt been created in the sense that its never been mounted on a practical delivery system -- which China appears to have done -- so, again, how is it dated technology?

Ok, that is a real stupid statement. It's like saying: 'What came first, the chicken or the egg?' The system has to be mounted before it can be dated? How the fuck was the system mounted to start with? It had to be developed. When it was developed it was dated. Do you even know what 'dated technology' means? ...are you from Canada also?

Actually can you show me a WWII example of a railgun? I think it will be hilarious while you're attempting to do so.

Refer to source listed above.

"In 1944, during World War II, Joachim Hänsler of Germany's Ordnance Office proposed the first theoretically viable railgun."

Again, in theory, any gun system that relies on rails is a railgun. A WWII railway gun relies on rails does it not?
 
If you can get the required range, at a much reduced cost and with the improved capacity and lack of explosive propellant to store (be that rocket fuel or artillery shells) that makes a rail gun a viable alternative.

The only true advantage I see to a railgun is its ability to not leave a 'heat signature'. But even submarines can be detected underwater by satellite these days. I just don't see it as practical. It takes a huge amount of energy to make it happen. Enough energy to illuminate a small city.
 
No, but I am serious. You are firing a projectile from a cannon, be it a chemical burn or an electromagnetic force. Outdated shit when a missile can do the job twice as better. Yeah, a catapult was also effective for its time. That thing looks stupid as shit on a Navy ship. It tells the world: 'Hey everyone, look at our huge obsolete cannon!'

A missile usually costs millions per round.

Which is fine as long as the US can print money.
 
I still feel like the railgun only exists because America's having more and more trouble distinguishing reality from fiction, and the whole country is a slave to the Rule of Cool.
 

Again, in theory, any gun system that relies on rails is a railgun. A WWII railway gun relies on rails does it not?
Not really, it can still be fired even if you remove the rails, it just will not be able to move.

A railgun is cool in theory, it could shoot a projectile much faster than a chemical gun or a missile(missiles take a long time to accelerate).
But the energy you need is immense and the rails get battered quickly. I built a small toy railgun, even at that scale the rails get bent and destroyed after a few shots, of course they have much better materials but they also use a lot more power. It seems the USA was able to resolve that problem, did China?
Unlikely. Chinese military technology is increasing very fast but it's way behind the west and Russia. Their carriers are a joke(the USA, France, UK and even Brazil have catapults, while they rely on the ski ramp), their airplanes only fly with Russian designed(if not outright built) engines, their small arms are usually of lower quality and so on.

If that's really a railgun I believe it will most likely explode after a few shots. However, trial and error is a good learning process.
 
No, but I am serious. You are firing a projectile from a cannon, be it a chemical burn or an electromagnetic force. Outdated shit when a missile can do the job twice as better. Yeah, a catapult was also effective for its time. That thing looks stupid as shit on a Navy ship. It tells the world: 'Hey everyone, look at our huge obsolete cannon!'

Man, you are beyond retarded. A rail gun projectile costs a fraction of the cost of a chemical missile, it has no heat signature, and travels so fast that it's impossible to intercept. Missile defense systems mean nothing to it, that's the biggest difference between it and chemical missiles.
 
The only true advantage I see to a railgun is its ability to not leave a 'heat signature'. But even submarines can be detected underwater by satellite these days. I just don't see it as practical. It takes a huge amount of energy to make it happen. Enough energy to illuminate a small city.

Most of the articles on the power consumption seem confused about the use of energy. Yes, 25MW is enough to power some 19,000 homes, but it's only used in short bursts. Still a huge amount of power, but power generation is usually discussed in terms of MW/hr.
LIke I said, the advantages are speed, range (which open up options for use, including long range destruction of missiles) and lack of explosive propellant (and potentially lack of explosive warheads). Which would also equate to capacity and cost, as well as reduced storage risk.

Compare that to some of the existing missile systems in use.
 
Back
Top