What's new

Is this an experimental rail gun on Chinese ship

As @long_ used to say, "China is a big country with a big population" and a BIG railgun.

2016年国家技术发明二等奖——北京理工大学王海福团队“活性毁伤元技术”,该项技术的产品将为我国电磁炮提供理想弹药

“活性毁伤元技术”是一种新型的战斗部材料技术。

“我们发明的新型爆炸材料毁伤元,既具有类似金属的力学强度,又含有与高能炸药相当的化学能,还具有与惰性材料类似的安全性,可以直接机械加工只有高速命中目标后才会发生爆炸。”王海福说,以前的惰性金属毁伤元只能通过纯动能毁伤目标,而这种新型材料毁伤元具备动能穿孔和爆炸作用的双重毁伤能力,威力会成倍性提升。

而对于该研究成果的技术水平和地位,王海福坦言:“近二十年来,如果把我国武装装备研制和发展看作是一个从全面跟踪追赶,到部分并跑甚至有限领跑的过程,那么本项技术发明成果无疑属于并跑或引领。”

由于电磁炮发射炮弹的速度极快,甚至可以达到传统火炮的10倍以上,巨大的瞬间加速度使得炮弹装药引信的可靠性和安全性都面临着难以克服的严峻考验,所以现阶段的电磁炮实验所使用的都是实心金属炮弹,只能凭借高速飞行的动能摧毁目标,这无疑对电磁炮的毁伤能力和精度产生了不利的影响,同时也极大地限制了电磁炮的应用范围

王海福教授发明的"活性毁伤元技术"毫无疑问是彻底解决电磁炮炮弹问题的最佳选择,使用活性毁伤元材料制造的炮弹不仅可以在高速命中目标以后依靠巨大的撞击能量引发剧烈爆炸,对目标造成严重的双重毁伤和二次毁伤;而且炮弹无需引信和装药这种危险的火工品,极大地提高了在储备、运输、发射过程中的安全性,使得电磁炮拥有了极大的可靠性和实战性。

目前种种迹象表明我国电磁炮的主研单位为北京理工大学和航天2院206所。所以我国电磁炮极有可能会使用活性毁伤元技术。:D:D

http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2017_02_07_393018.shtml
 
. .
2016年国家技术发明二等奖——北京理工大学王海福团队“活性毁伤元技术”,该项技术的产品将为我国电磁炮提供理想弹药

“活性毁伤元技术”是一种新型的战斗部材料技术。

“我们发明的新型爆炸材料毁伤元,既具有类似金属的力学强度,又含有与高能炸药相当的化学能,还具有与惰性材料类似的安全性,可以直接机械加工只有高速命中目标后才会发生爆炸。”王海福说,以前的惰性金属毁伤元只能通过纯动能毁伤目标,而这种新型材料毁伤元具备动能穿孔和爆炸作用的双重毁伤能力,威力会成倍性提升。

而对于该研究成果的技术水平和地位,王海福坦言:“近二十年来,如果把我国武装装备研制和发展看作是一个从全面跟踪追赶,到部分并跑甚至有限领跑的过程,那么本项技术发明成果无疑属于并跑或引领。”

由于电磁炮发射炮弹的速度极快,甚至可以达到传统火炮的10倍以上,巨大的瞬间加速度使得炮弹装药引信的可靠性和安全性都面临着难以克服的严峻考验,所以现阶段的电磁炮实验所使用的都是实心金属炮弹,只能凭借高速飞行的动能摧毁目标,这无疑对电磁炮的毁伤能力和精度产生了不利的影响,同时也极大地限制了电磁炮的应用范围

王海福教授发明的"活性毁伤元技术"毫无疑问是彻底解决电磁炮炮弹问题的最佳选择,使用活性毁伤元材料制造的炮弹不仅可以在高速命中目标以后依靠巨大的撞击能量引发剧烈爆炸,对目标造成严重的双重毁伤和二次毁伤;而且炮弹无需引信和装药这种危险的火工品,极大地提高了在储备、运输、发射过程中的安全性,使得电磁炮拥有了极大的可靠性和实战性。

目前种种迹象表明我国电磁炮的主研单位为北京理工大学和航天2院206所。所以我国电磁炮极有可能会使用活性毁伤元技术。:D:D

http://www.guancha.cn/military-affairs/2017_02_07_393018.shtml
This is awesome
 
. .
This is awesome

EMGUN.jpg
 
. . . . .
the principle of electronic magnetic gun published in 1932 in an english magazine


EG2.jpg
 
.
Congrats to China, it certainly looks "cool", but then you have to ask yourself, "What kind of capability are we getting out of these guns?" How many shots are we getting out of this in a minute? Have we solved the wear and tear of the interior barrel after every shot? How about size, weight, and power issues to turn this into a real operational weapon, not a test bed?

The US has decided to take a different approach. We've decided to take the hypervelocity projectile developed for the railgun, and fire it out of US Naval deck guns and US Army howitzers at Mach 3+ at a range of 40-50mi for missile defense. This capability offers only slightly less performance than a EMR, but I can distribute these HVP's to 1,000 guns in the US inventory, compared to only a handful of railguns at most. So why would I pursue railguns when I get a similar capability out of HVP's and can distribute them to 1,000 guns at a much faster and cheaper rate? Here's a quote from Bob Work:

“We thought railguns were something we were really going to go after,” then-Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work stated at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. in May 2016. “But it turns out that powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out of the electromagnetic rail gun, but it’s something we can do much faster.”

The potential for rapid fielding across both the Army and Navy proved an alluring prospect for SCO’s mission, one that trumped the railgun’s hype. When asked about the organization’s priorities, SCO spokesman Chris Sherwood confirmed to Task & Purpose that the office is focused on “developing the [HVP] for use in existing powder gun systems to give the Navy and Army near-term, cost-effective long-range fires and missile defense solutions.” Translation: Why invest in an expensive gun if the bullet alone can get the job done?


DOD computer modeling has even shown that HVPs can destroy 95-98 missiles of a 100 missile raid:

The Raid Breaker exercise would demonstrate the capabilities of the Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System program. The DOD wants to conduct an exercise against 100 cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and be able to knock down 95 to 98 of them.

DOD’s modeling shows that “if we can close the fire support with a controlled solution,” the weapon would be able to shoot down most of a 100-missile raid.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...ize-south-korean-missile-defense-in-2018.html

If HVP potential is fully realized, it will revolutionize US missile defense and at a much faster and cheaper rate than EMR ever could.
 
.
Congrats to China, it certainly looks "cool", but then you have to ask yourself, "What kind of capability are we getting out of these guns?" How many shots are we getting out of this in a minute? Have we solved the wear and tear of the interior barrel after every shot? How about size, weight, and power issues to turn this into a real operational weapon, not a test bed?

The US has decided to take a different approach. We've decided to take the hypervelocity projectile developed for the railgun, and fire it out of US Naval deck guns and US Army howitzers at Mach 3+ at a range of 40-50mi for missile defense. This capability offers only slightly less performance than a EMR, but I can distribute these HVP's to 1,000 guns in the US inventory, compared to only a handful of railguns at most. So why would I pursue railguns when I get a similar capability out of HVP's and can distribute them to 1,000 guns at a much faster and cheaper rate? Here's a quote from Bob Work:

“We thought railguns were something we were really going to go after,” then-Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work stated at the Atlantic Council in Washington, D.C. in May 2016. “But it turns out that powder guns firing the same hypervelocity projectiles gets you almost as much as you would get out of the electromagnetic rail gun, but it’s something we can do much faster.”

The potential for rapid fielding across both the Army and Navy proved an alluring prospect for SCO’s mission, one that trumped the railgun’s hype. When asked about the organization’s priorities, SCO spokesman Chris Sherwood confirmed to Task & Purpose that the office is focused on “developing the [HVP] for use in existing powder gun systems to give the Navy and Army near-term, cost-effective long-range fires and missile defense solutions.” Translation: Why invest in an expensive gun if the bullet alone can get the job done?


DOD computer modeling has even shown that HVPs can destroy 95-98 missiles of a 100 missile raid:

The Raid Breaker exercise would demonstrate the capabilities of the Hypervelocity Gun Weapon System program. The DOD wants to conduct an exercise against 100 cruise missiles and ballistic missiles and be able to knock down 95 to 98 of them.

DOD’s modeling shows that “if we can close the fire support with a controlled solution,” the weapon would be able to shoot down most of a 100-missile raid.

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/...ize-south-korean-missile-defense-in-2018.html

If HVP potential is fully realized, it will revolutionize US missile defense and at a much faster and cheaper rate than EMR ever could.
We are not doing missile defense. We are attacking stationary ground targets such as deplying the railguns in Tibet to reach the Indian Ocean.
 
.
We are not doing missile defense. We are attacking stationary ground targets such as deplying the railguns in Tibet to reach the Indian Ocean.

Offensive strikes are an option, but railguns will be outsticked by 200-300 mile+ antiship missiles every time. It's why there usefulness is mostly around missile defense.
 
.
Offensive strikes are an option, but railguns will be outsticked by 200-300 mile+ antiship missiles every time. It's why there usefulness is mostly around missile defense.
Oh don't worry we have antiship missiles too. When we want to saturate a ground target like a capital city with thousands or millions of rounds of ordnance from a range of 300+ km we will use railgun.
 
.
Oh don't worry we have antiship missiles too. When we want to saturate a ground target like a capital city with thousands or millions of rounds of ordnance from a range of 300+ km we will use railgun.

Railguns have only around half that range, and that would be a great way to melt the barrel. And a land based railgun just seems impractical considering the size, weight, and power required. It'd be immobile and vulnerable to missile and counterbattery fire. Your scenario is unlikely to say the least.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom