"Chinese Navy ship seen carrying an apparent railgun"

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-02/chinese-warship-with-electromagnetic-railguns-spotted-at-sea/10680108

Shit getting real.

Thanks Obama

Calling fake, guys can’t even build a good jet engine / carrier.

made in india

Also that ship is clearly not nuclear powered give the diesel trail and size. The whole logistics of a rail gun require a nuclear reactor for power. Fake fake fake.

I’m always amazed how much you seem to know about this military stuff.

When I was designing warheads one of the other divisions of our company was designing rail guns.

They didn’t need a nuclear reactor for power.

Don’t need it, sure you can power it with any electricity. But in reality if you’re going to be firing it in any sort of cadence they in all practicality require nuclear power. Otherwise the electricity needs would be massive and you’d wind up unable to sustain any sort of firing cadence. In the same sense durability is an issue. Anyhow, putting a rail gun on a non-nuclear ship has from everything I’ve ever heard been considered a sub-optimal waste at best. So again, not sure why you’d stick one on a pint sized ship trailing diesel. Seems like if you were technologically sophisticated and well funded enough to have a rail gun mounted on a ship that ship would be properly powered.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/railguns-lasers-nuclear-power-the-us-navys-next-super-ship-14100

But a future Navy warship needs to have the power and cooling capacity to run these energy intensive systems. Those would include not only directed energy weapons, but also a myriad of high-powered sensors and electronic warfare systems. And while the Navy can draw on the fifty-eight megawatt integrated power systems found on the three-ship Zumwalt-class destroyers—which are basically glorified technological testbeds—the service should very seriously consider nuclear propulsion to address the FSC’s energy requirements.

While the upfront cost of nuclear power is high, the life-cycle costs might be worth it. That’s especially true with the kind of electrical power-generation requirements these future vessels might need. The price of oil is low right now—and it might remain low for some time to come—however, it won’t always remain low. Longer term, China will almost certainly continue to develop—wishful thinking by some—and its demand for energy will grow as its economy once again picks up steam. That means the prices will eventually spike—possibly to the levels we used to see in recent years.

Riiiiight makes sense Chinabot. All that sophisticated technology and testing must be why China resorted to buying its jet engines off of Russia, threw in the towel on its latest J-20 engines because it lacked quality control to even build those right so they wouldn’t hand grenade. Still building their carriers with the ski-jump design and oil powered like its 1985 (none domestically built in service yet) because they can’t master the complexities of a catapult system and are 15 years optimistically from attempting to field a nuclear vessel but they’ve got the rail gun sorted out.

This goes up there with my all time favorite, Iran’s fake fighter jet made for ants that must be at least three times this size.

Just 3 basis points?

Welcome back Pure Alpha!