Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
_Dracarys

want to buy tier 20 PLAN amphibious assult ship

8 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

228
[TNG]
Members
813 posts
6,173 battles

it has electromagnetically propelled rail gun with shell speed of ~1800 m/s!

 

that means you can hit ships 26km away in under 5 seconds!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[HELLS]
Members
1,695 posts
15,353 battles

Those are point-and-shoot numbers because at 30 knots the target will move 52 feet. That said, the rail gun must be stabilised against pitch, roll, and yaw as it fires. Give the moving masses involved with a high energy weapon, you are looking at gun mounts with the turret/mounting weight, including stabilization systems, of over 110 tons at a minimum for a 6-inch gun or larger, even with modern technologies and computerized fire control systems. About like hitting a T-90 tank at 2600 metres with an APSDFS from an L7 105mm tank gun round as a comparison. Since we are looking at kinetic energy as the damage source and not HE, spaced ceramic/explosive armor plate arrangements may end up on ships, but I doubt it. On top of that, you are firing at many ships with CIWS self-defence, gun and missile defenses, and ABMS anti-missile systems designed to cope with attacking objects coming at them at 3 to 10 times that speed. A rail gun on an amphib has only one puprose, and that is firing terminally guided SAP/HE at distant targets in support of an air/sea littoral assault. Gunfire support using precision munitions, aka USS Zumwalt. And on a ship of less than 20,000 metric tonnes, a 6-inch rail gun system is a big item that takes up a lot of hull volume. Believe half or, better yet, nothing you read on the web about PRC's military air/sea/ground capabilities. It is all [edited] propaganda. And never mind the sources either, it is all misinformation.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
239
[HC]
[HC]
Beta Testers
1,314 posts
9,414 battles

It has a stat called gun crew, it electrocutes a random number every time it fire, when you run out the ship stops moving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
863
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,851 posts
4,224 battles

The true power of the Railgun is shore bombardment: when you can throw an iron slug the size of an engine block over 100mi inland at Mach 5... you are going to be giving any fortification that your enemy can a serious headache. Except this ship would never make it to the shore.

Your claim that the PLAN has put such a weapon on an amphibious assault ship is laughable. Current railgun designs require a huge amount of power, 25 MegaWatts. To put that in perspective, even the USS Zummwalt, which was designed to be potentially upgraded to take railguns, only has 9MW of power left-over after it's engine, guidance, crew, steering, detection, and Electronic Warfare systems are all accounted for... and the Zummwalt's powerplant puts out something like 78 MegaWatts raw.

So, even if the PLAN did put a railgun on an LHA, it would never work. It just wouldn't have the guidance systems to be able to fire Over The Horizon (OTH) nor the detection systems to find targets, and if it were to try to fire within the horizon, it would be destroyed by an OTH-capable Anti Ship Missile before getting in-range to shoot... since the power requirements would mean that this ship would not really be able to afford competent CIWS systems, either.

Edited by Carrier_Lexington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
863
[HINON]
[HINON]
Members
3,851 posts
4,224 battles
37 minutes ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

On top of that, you are firing at many ships with CIWS self-defence, gun and missile defenses, and ABMS anti-missile systems designed to cope with attacking objects coming at them at 3 to 10 times that speed.

Not really. 1800m/s is roughly Mach 5, and even the advanced hypersonic missiles only go Mach 7.

But to put a railgun on an Amphibious Assault Ship would be stupid because it would draw way too much power, which means forgoing critical systems such as Fire Control Systems, Detection Systems, Engines, Close-In Weapons Systems...

Without those, this ship takes a weapon that only works at OTH ranges and tries to use it below the Horizon... which will never work because any rival ship will just be able to blast it from outside of its effective range with an AShM, which the railgun-LHA wouldn't be able to counter because it doesn't have the electrical power to afford decent CIWS.

Edited by Carrier_Lexington

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
273
[RUST]
Beta Testers
932 posts
10,357 battles

And your railgun would be useless if you can't put shells where you want them. The secret sauce in railguns aren't the high energy stuff that everyone talks about, it's how do you get a guidance system on to a shell that can survive 100g+ acceleration and giant EM field from being fired from a rail gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
228
[TNG]
Members
813 posts
6,173 battles
1 hour ago, GrandAdmiral_2016 said:

Those are point-and-shoot numbers because at 30 knots the target will move 52 feet. That said, the rail gun must be stabilised against pitch, roll, and yaw as it fires. Give the moving masses involved with a high energy weapon, you are looking at gun mounts with the turret/mounting weight, including stabilization systems, of over 110 tons at a minimum for a 6-inch gun or larger, even with modern technologies and computerized fire control systems. About like hitting a T-90 tank at 2600 metres with an APSDFS from an L7 105mm tank gun round as a comparison. Since we are looking at kinetic energy as the damage source and not HE, spaced ceramic/explosive armor plate arrangements may end up on ships, but I doubt it. On top of that, you are firing at many ships with CIWS self-defence, gun and missile defenses, and ABMS anti-missile systems designed to cope with attacking objects coming at them at 3 to 10 times that speed. A rail gun on an amphib has only one puprose, and that is firing terminally guided SAP/HE at distant targets in support of an air/sea littoral assault. Gunfire support using precision munitions, aka USS Zumwalt. And on a ship of less than 20,000 metric tonnes, a 6-inch rail gun system is a big item that takes up a lot of hull volume. Believe half or, better yet, nothing you read on the web about PRC's military air/sea/ground capabilities. It is all [edited] propaganda. And never mind the sources either, it is all misinformation.

im not sure i understood everything you just said but big words mean credibility to me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
365
[HELLS]
Members
1,695 posts
15,353 battles

I am trained in gunnery basics and have fired tank guns at moving targets on a practice range while on the move. It is basically point-and-shoot inside 2000 meters if moving at anything more than 5 kph, relying on the stabilization system of the gun to keep it pointed at the target. To get really good at it takes practice, lots of it, and while I was cross-trained in armor (I was infantry), I do not claim to be a good gunner. Present-day FC systems are miles above what I used back in the day. As far as shipboard guns are concerned, I trained on those as a sea cadet in my teens. Shipboard fire control systems are worlds apart from those in tanks, and the ones I used were WW II-vintage and way behind what is current. The gunnery officer in the director control tower, which is stablized, had to wait until ship pitch, roll and yaw were within acceptable parameters before pushing the fire pedal in director control firing during a practice shoot on a gunnery range, as the guns in those old DDs were not stabilized at all! The gun crews were good on those old ships, scoring 1 and sometimes 2 hits every 4-gun salvo at 8,000 metres on a towed target moving at 12 knots in any sea state below sea state 5. In rough seas the ROF drops off drastically, as does the hit rate, as ship motion affects crews and gunnery. I can tell you from personal experience that the A-turret position in an old DD is not where you want to be in rough seas! Now you understand why I went infantry. I could stand the mud and cold on land, but not mid-North Atlantic's cold waves and weather!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×