Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
JohnPJones

Could monitors make a limited return?

84 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
3,012 posts
6,734 battles

https://taskandpurpose.com/chinas-electromagnetic-railgun-sea-trials?utm_content=buffer74c25&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

i saw it, and while yes it is a test platform it got me thinking, could vessels similar in design be put to use as monitors?

seems like it would be a good and fairly cheap way to do NGFS if the CCCP ever decided to invade Taiwan.

could be a useful ship type in the Korean theater for the US and her allies if the US can ever get the railgun figured out.

so, let’s discuss that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
851 posts
7,051 battles

Maybe as part of a layered missile defense system?  IMO Taiwans navy wont last past day one of a full invasion scenario 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,012 posts
6,734 battles
38 minutes ago, missile742 said:

Maybe as part of a layered missile defense system?  IMO Taiwans navy wont last past day one of a full invasion scenario 

Probably wouldn’t but the army and airforce only needs to hold out  and control key locations long enough for the US to arrive, railgun monitors would be able to fire on Taiwan while remaining fairly close to mainland China.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
851 posts
7,051 battles

Chinas plan is to fill the air space with so many short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and long range rockets that US forces will have to fight all the way from Guam to reach the straits.  All with GPS accuracy and maneuverable warheads that we cant shoot down.  If China wants Taiwan we probably cant stop them short of going nuclear.   Rail guns are cool though but dont see how Taiwan could defend them for long

  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
116
[C-1]
Members
438 posts
8,687 battles

Pretty sure that we've got plenty of spies in there just as much as they have spies stealing our stuff.

Not that I'd be dumb enough to underestimate its lethality, but if they made such a "Breakthrough" I'm pretty sure our own military is well aware of it and has already implemented it, viewed it as "not such a breakthrough", or is planning on copying them (<yeah it works both ways).

The main question I have is what sort of powerplant they have aboard that ship the Chinese are using to test their railgun. I know we've been investing in DD's with far excessive powerplants for the day that we do eventually field a railgun... and maybe laser defense systems. Do the Chinese have the same capacity already aboard their test ship or are they just using a basic ship and loading it up with capacitors? This is a big one because, sure you can get that railgun to fire once, but I don't know how much effort or investment they'd be willing to put into powering these monitors.

By all accounts though, a Railgun would wreck any static targets at max range. Great for bombardment obviously. A moving target however (such as targeting a ship or aircraft that is actively maneuvering) would have to be much closer by comparison; at least until someone figures out a way to add a guidance system to them that could survive being fired. Then again, quantity could do it but I don't know just how many rounds per minute a railgun can sustain.

I know the barrel gets worn down rather quickly though and that's through these single test firings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,103
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,009 battles
1 hour ago, JohnPJones said:

the army and airforce only needs to hold out  and control key locations long enough for the US to arrive

PLEASE do remember it took FEMA days to just get water to New Orleans; your reliance on the US military getting sufficient forces across the Pacific to intimidate and / or stop the Reds from taking Taiwan seems, to me, to be seriously misplaced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
500
[JFSOC]
[JFSOC]
Members
1,582 posts
4,750 battles
1 hour ago, missile742 said:

Maybe as part of a layered missile defense system?  IMO Taiwans navy wont last past day one of a full invasion scenario 

It isn't the weapon firing so much as the fire control system that goes with it.  It looks like China has a working prototype they're testing rather than something that's truly deployable, but I think we'd need to know more about the fire controls and the weapon itself to make a full determination of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,159 posts
2 hours ago, missile742 said:

Chinas plan is to fill the air space with so many short, medium and intermediate range ballistic missiles, cruise missiles and long range rockets that US forces will have to fight all the way from Guam to reach the straits.  All with GPS accuracy and maneuverable warheads that we cant shoot down.  If China wants Taiwan we probably cant stop them short of going nuclear. 

LOL, no.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Beta Testers
10,958 posts
5 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

https://taskandpurpose.com/chinas-electromagnetic-railgun-sea-trials?utm_content=buffer74c25&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

i saw it, and while yes it is a test platform it got me thinking, could vessels similar in design be put to use as monitors?

seems like it would be a good and fairly cheap way to do NGFS if the CCCP ever decided to invade Taiwan.

could be a useful ship type in the Korean theater for the US and her allies if the US can ever get the railgun figured out.

so, let’s discuss that.

 

Its a converted LST.  If you have seen my news lately, the ship has gone out once more to sea for more testing.  

 

 

There is no fire control system on board the ship, its capacity is filled with what appears to be container sized generators.

 

The speculation is that the gun might end up being part of a future Type 055 variant, once the ship is converted to an IEP system.   It may also make sense being used on a future LPD where it can be used to support ground troops.    The total output of an 055 is around 113MW which is more than a Zumwalt by a significant degree.

 

78MW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

 

112MW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_055_destroyer

 

What it needs are generators to convert all GT output into pure electricity, which is what you are going to need if you go into a pure integrated electric propulsion (IEP) setup.  

 

I am not sure about a monitor.  Despite all the rhetoric about Taiwan, China is more interested about securing its Belt and Road initiative, and namely the String of Pearls, which means it intends to further increase its ocean going fleet.  

 

I am not sure how coastal monitors are going to hold up against Taiwan's Tuo Chiang missile corvettes, as Taiwan recently announced to make a whole bunch of them.  Each a stealthy missile boat with 16 ASMs, eight of which are the supersonic type.   You are back to a ship that needs to sufficiently defend against these missiles, and that means space eating SAMs and radars.   And then your monitor will look less of a monitor before it begins to look like a large frigate or small destroyer with a railgun.

Edited by Eisennagel
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,159 posts
48 minutes ago, missile742 said:

Actually yes

No, GPS Sats are the easiest things to knock out of orbit while using a signal that is quite weak and easy to jam. THAADs, much less THAAD-ERs would eat a Pershing 2 for breakfast, something that the Russians and the Chinese still can't match these 30 some odd years later. So get stuffed. :cap_cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,012 posts
6,734 battles
3 hours ago, Eisennagel said:

 

Its a converted LST.  If you have seen my news lately, the ship has gone out once more to sea for more testing.  

 

 

There is no fire control system on board the ship, its capacity is filled with what appears to be container sized generators.

 

The speculation is that the gun might end up being part of a future Type 055 variant, once the ship is converted to an IEP system.   It may also make sense being used on a future LPD where it can be used to support ground troops.    The total output of an 055 is around 113MW which is more than a Zumwalt by a significant degree.

 

78MW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zumwalt-class_destroyer

 

112MW

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_055_destroyer

 

What it needs are generators to convert all GT output into pure electricity, which is what you are going to need if you go into a pure integrated electric propulsion (IEP) setup.  

 

I am not sure about a monitor.  Despite all the rhetoric about Taiwan, China is more interested about securing its Belt and Road initiative, and namely the String of Pearls, which means it intends to further increase its ocean going fleet.  

 

I am not sure how coastal monitors are going to hold up against Taiwan's Tuo Chiang missile corvettes, as Taiwan recently announced to make a whole bunch of them.  Each a stealthy missile boat with 16 ASMs, eight of which are the supersonic type.   You are back to a ship that needs to sufficiently defend against these missiles, and that means space eating SAMs and radars.   And then your monitor will look less of a monitor before it begins to look like a large frigate or small destroyer with a railgun.

Didn’t say the test vessel was a monitor, just that cheap small...ish vessels could carry them to help with NGFS during a hypothetical invasion of Taiwan...

 

As for defense, you’d have the other frigates, destroyers there providing the same umbrella protection they provide carriers and amphibs 

Edited by JohnPJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,012 posts
6,734 battles
6 hours ago, Umikami said:

PLEASE do remember it took FEMA days to just get water to New Orleans; your reliance on the US military getting sufficient forces across the Pacific to intimidate and / or stop the Reds from taking Taiwan seems, to me, to be seriously misplaced.

Across the pacific? They’re permanently in the Pacific in Japan and South Korea and could literally park and be there in a week or so...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,012 posts
6,734 battles
7 hours ago, Levits said:

Pretty sure that we've got plenty of spies in there just as much as they have spies stealing our stuff.

Not that I'd be dumb enough to underestimate its lethality, but if they made such a "Breakthrough" I'm pretty sure our own military is well aware of it and has already implemented it, viewed it as "not such a breakthrough", or is planning on copying them (<yeah it works both ways).

The main question I have is what sort of powerplant they have aboard that ship the Chinese are using to test their railgun. I know we've been investing in DD's with far excessive powerplants for the day that we do eventually field a railgun... and maybe laser defense systems. Do the Chinese have the same capacity already aboard their test ship or are they just using a basic ship and loading it up with capacitors? This is a big one because, sure you can get that railgun to fire once, but I don't know how much effort or investment they'd be willing to put into powering these monitors.

By all accounts though, a Railgun would wreck any static targets at max range. Great for bombardment obviously. A moving target however (such as targeting a ship or aircraft that is actively maneuvering) would have to be much closer by comparison; at least until someone figures out a way to add a guidance system to them that could survive being fired. Then again, quantity could do it but I don't know just how many rounds per minute a railgun can sustain.

I know the barrel gets worn down rather quickly though and that's through these single test firings.

They have generators in the cargo area...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
851 posts
7,051 battles
10 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

No, GPS Sats are the easiest things to knock out of orbit while using a signal that is quite weak and easy to jam. THAADs, much less THAAD-ERs would eat a Pershing 2 for breakfast, something that the Russians and the Chinese still can't match these 30 some odd years later. So get stuffed. :cap_cool:

"Get stuffed?"  What are you, 12 yrs old?  So I guess the article I read at work (cleared defense contractor) by an US government organization who's initials end in "A" (yes one of those) was full of crap?  BTW, do a quick Google search and you will see the Chinese have already copied the Pershing II RV design -- its the basis for the maneuverable RVs currently fielded on their medium and intermediate range missiles.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
851 posts
7,051 battles
10 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

No, GPS Sats are the easiest things to knock out of orbit while using a signal that is quite weak and easy to jam. THAADs, much less THAAD-ERs would eat a Pershing 2 for breakfast, something that the Russians and the Chinese still can't match these 30 some odd years later. So get stuffed. :cap_cool:

Are you seriously suggesting that we would either jam or knock out our own GPS satellites?  Besides, that still leaves China's Beidou navigation sats to provide precision nav.  As for THAAD or any other BMD system, there are only so many launchers and reloads available.  China, or North Korea for that matter, already plan to lose a few in the initial salvos.  Followed by more waves until the THAAD and Aegis launchers are empty. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5
[FACT]
[FACT]
Members
14 posts
21,082 battles
19 hours ago, Umikami said:

PLEASE do remember it took FEMA days to just get water to New Orleans; your reliance on the US military getting sufficient forces across the Pacific to intimidate and / or stop the Reds from taking Taiwan seems, to me, to be seriously misplaced.

PLEASE do remember it took KATHLEEN BLANCO days to sign the orders to just get water to New Orleans; your reliance on the bi-partisanship of one party to allow sufficient water across State lines to alleviate suffering seems, to me, to be seriously misplaced. 

I was there, were you ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6,103
[FOXEH]
Banned
14,364 posts
20,009 battles
14 hours ago, JohnPJones said:

Across the pacific? They’re permanently in the Pacific in Japan and South Korea and could literally park and be there in a week or so...

I think the key phrase in this is "sufficient forces" as I'm not sure the forces on hand would be equal to the task of stopping a full blown invasion.

2 hours ago, bobcbob said:

PLEASE do remember it took KATHLEEN BLANCO days to sign the orders to just get water to New Orleans; your reliance on the bi-partisanship of one party to allow sufficient water across State lines to alleviate suffering seems, to me, to be seriously misplaced. 

OK, so lets look at it this way; if it took DAYS just to get an order signed to deliver water to the site of a NATURAL national disaster located in our own country where we could use our own infrastructure to get it there, how long will you be giving our government to make a decision to commit American combat forces to stopping an invasion of a strategically useless island across the Pacific against the worlds only other remaining superpower when that same superpower has already demonstrated it's willingness to engage in the use of deadly force to achieve it's goals? Lets consider how long it took for that same government apparatus to get mobilized against Osama Bin Laden after 9 - 11; I don't think you will like the answer. How long it took to get troops in place to begin removing Iraq from Kuwait? Pretty sure you won't like that answer either. The United States isn't known for "springing to the rescue", we're more of a "I gave you all this time and you're still here so now I have to kick your butt all the way back to where you came from" sort of responders. Eventually, it will get done, and get done right; but it definitely will not get done quickly, as people who commit forces to combat "quickly" usually end up having those forces badly mauled due to either lack of planning or lack of logistical support, something the American military frowns upon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32
[RCN]
Members
64 posts
15,663 battles

American forces have now been defeated in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Syria. They can keep their soldiers alive, but if they are to accomplish anything in the future, the UALLS need a makeover in realism. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,012 posts
6,734 battles
47 minutes ago, Wadmore_Canada said:

American forces have now been defeated in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Syria. They can keep their soldiers alive, but if they are to accomplish anything in the future, the UALLS need a makeover in realism. 

 

How have US forces been defeated in any of those conflicts?

the American people may have been defeated in regards to Vietnam and Afghanistan, but Syria no one wanted us there in the first place, an out going administration planned the invasion to occur under the new administration, and after taking care of as much of his domestic and trade policy the president withdrew troops that never had authorization from congress to be there, nor did they have any business being sent there in the first place, so highlight a strategic military defeat in a single one of those conflicts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,159 posts
6 hours ago, missile742 said:

"Get stuffed?"  What are you, 12 yrs old?  So I guess the article I read at work (cleared defense contractor) by an US government organization who's initials end in "A" (yes one of those) was full of crap?  BTW, do a quick Google search and you will see the Chinese have already copied the Pershing II RV design -- its the basis for the maneuverable RVs currently fielded on their medium and intermediate range missiles.  

Seems like you're the 12 year old. "Well, my dad works at the Pentagon and he knows things, so there!". I'd love to know how the Chinese managed to copy a design that was never publicly shown.

 

6 hours ago, missile742 said:

Are you seriously suggesting that we would either jam or knock out our own GPS satellites?  Besides, that still leaves China's Beidou navigation sats to provide precision nav.  As for THAAD or any other BMD system, there are only so many launchers and reloads available.  China, or North Korea for that matter, already plan to lose a few in the initial salvos.  Followed by more waves until the THAAD and Aegis launchers are empty. 

Because you know, it's not like we can't turn ours off and then shoot theirs down, oh no. You have to be intentionally obtuse and petulant, seems you're the one that needs to do some growing up. There are so many factors you're completely unaware of in how utterly difficult it is to make an opposed amphibious landing when you have a year and the largest fleet ever assembled such as it was with D-Day. But you're suggesting that China can just instantly toss together a fleet less then 20th the size and less then 20th the tonnage movement capability to take an island that's nothing but mudflats, heavy urban or mountains for coasts while under fire the entire way.

You want to think that chucking missiles at airports constitutes an invasion, you go right ahead, but the adults are speaking, so be quiet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
705
[BROOK]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
3,159 posts
2 hours ago, Umikami said:

I think the key phrase in this is "sufficient forces" as I'm not sure the forces on hand would be equal to the task of stopping a full blown invasion.

OK, so lets look at it this way; if it took DAYS just to get an order signed to deliver water to the site of a NATURAL national disaster located in our own country where we could use our own infrastructure to get it there, how long will you be giving our government to make a decision to commit American combat forces to stopping an invasion of a strategically useless island across the Pacific against the worlds only other remaining superpower when that same superpower has already demonstrated it's willingness to engage in the use of deadly force to achieve it's goals? Lets consider how long it took for that same government apparatus to get mobilized against Osama Bin Laden after 9 - 11; I don't think you will like the answer. How long it took to get troops in place to begin removing Iraq from Kuwait? Pretty sure you won't like that answer either. The United States isn't known for "springing to the rescue", we're more of a "I gave you all this time and you're still here so now I have to kick your butt all the way back to where you came from" sort of responders. Eventually, it will get done, and get done right; but it definitely will not get done quickly, as people who commit forces to combat "quickly" usually end up having those forces badly mauled due to either lack of planning or lack of logistical support, something the American military frowns upon.

QRFs are not in the business of stopping invasions, so stop acting like they are. The attacker will always have the advantage on a strategic level if they don't show their hand and the defenders will need to time to build up and arrange their forces to oppose the attacker. The fact that the US was able to build up a force to defeat third largest army in the world at the time in less then 6 months with less then 500 deaths on their side is something that even as recently as Vietnam that Generals and Admirals could only dream about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
556
[BS]
Members
1,988 posts
11,126 battles

Haven't you seen those laser systems that can shoot artillery rounds out of the sky? Lasers are a hard counter to missles. All those missles are pointless if the US navy installs lasers on everything, which is going to happen sooner rather then later. If you were to somehow coat the missle in a mirrorlike reflective surface, they'll just scream "here i am" to infared and radar systems, making it way easier to use intercept missles.

Edited by HorrorRoach

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
851 posts
7,051 battles
2 hours ago, TornadoADV said:

Seems like you're the 12 year old. "Well, my dad works at the Pentagon and he knows things, so there!". I'd love to know how the Chinese managed to copy a design that was never publicly shown.

 

Because you know, it's not like we can't turn ours off and then shoot theirs down, oh no. You have to be intentionally obtuse and petulant, seems you're the one that needs to do some growing up. There are so many factors you're completely unaware of in how utterly difficult it is to make an opposed amphibious landing when you have a year and the largest fleet ever assembled such as it was with D-Day. But you're suggesting that China can just instantly toss together a fleet less then 20th the size and less then 20th the tonnage movement capability to take an island that's nothing but mudflats, heavy urban or mountains for coasts while under fire the entire way.

You want to think that chucking missiles at airports constitutes an invasion, you go right ahead, but the adults are speaking, so be quiet.

Lol... How did the Chinese get the Pershing II design?  They stole it like so many other US designs. Where ddi i say anything about the ease of putting a fleet together?  All i am saying is that if they ever did make the decision to invade, the Chinese missile force will engage our navy while it is still a thousand miles away frim the straits and all the way in, while laying waste to what little defense Taiwan cam muster.   Ill be sure to tell the DIA to give u a call because u obviously know more than those of us with acess to current information who are working the problem of Chinese missle capabilities

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
353
[S0L0]
Beta Testers
851 posts
7,051 battles
1 hour ago, HorrorRoach said:

Haven't you seen those laser systems that can shoot artillery rounds out of the sky? Lasers are a hard counter to missles. All those missles are pointless if the US navy installs lasers on everything, which is going to happen sooner rather then later. If you were to somehow coat the missle in a mirrorlike reflective surface, they'll just scream "here i am" to infared and radar systems, making it way easier to use intercept missles.

 

Lasers are effective if u can get close enough and have line of sight long enough to burn a hole, while hoping there is no attenuating cloud cover or ablative material on the target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×