Chinese Naval Scientists Back Big Guns On Trump-Class Warships To Counter Drone Swarms

Chinese military researchers say large naval guns could be useful against drone swarms, giving some support to a part of U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan for a new class of battleships.

The researchers looked at shells that can explode close to a group of drones and spread thousands of fragments. They say this could allow one shell to damage more than one drone without hitting each drone directly.

The study was published last month in the Chinese peer-reviewed journal Command Control & Simulation.

The proposed battleships would carry 9 large naval guns, along with a large number of missiles and other electromagnetic weapons.

Chinese researchers test the idea

Wang Lei and his team from PLA’s Dalian Naval Academy studied how large-calibre guns could be used against a group of small unmanned weapons.

They did not treat the shell as a weapon that had to hit one drone. Instead, they looked at what would happen if the shell exploded near the group and sent fragments in different directions.

For their example, the researchers used 30 Russian-made Lancet-3 loitering munitions.

Each Lancet-3 has a maximum take-off mass of about 12 kg (26 lb) and can carry a payload of up to 3 kg.

The researchers assumed that one shell would create 2,000 fragments. They estimated that 1,589 of those fragments would be heavy enough to cause damage.

Their model also used a fragment-cloud kill radius of 15 metres (49 feet).

With those assumptions, the researchers calculated a 3.95% chance of damaging any one drone.

For a swarm of 30 drones, one shell could therefore damage about 1.19 drones, according to the study.

These are results from the researchers’ model. They are not based on a battlefield test.

Guns would not work alone

The researchers said the system would need accurate detection and tracking. It would also need good fire-control systems and programmable fuses.

They suggested using the guns together with electronic warfare, lasers and command-and-control systems.

The idea is to use different systems to defend a warship rather than depend on the guns alone.

The study also points to the problem created by cheap drones. A relatively inexpensive drone can force a warship to consider how much it should spend to stop it.

Trump’s battleship plan faces criticism

Trump announced the proposed Trump-class battleship in December as part of his planned “Golden Fleet”.

The design includes nine large naval guns, extensive missile capacity and other electromagnetic weapons.

The plan has been criticised by experts and social media users. They have questioned whether putting so much firepower on one very expensive ship makes sense when modern navies also face long-range missiles and unmanned weapons.

One U.S. online commenter called the plan “designed by a rich moron with no concept of practicality or functionality”.

Another joked that the ships would be “quite literally gold-plated”, referring to their perceived wastefulness and high cost.

Another post compared the design to a “Swiss army knife” that tried to do everything but was “useless at everything”.

Military analysts have also raised concerns about the idea. Military.com has argued that battleships have long been vulnerable to aircraft, submarines and missiles.

Battleship programme could cost billions

The U.S. Congressional Budget Office estimated in August that the first nuclear-powered battleship could cost about $23.4 billion.

A programme involving 15 ships could cost roughly $275 billion, according to the estimate.

The U.S. Navy says it plans to order 15 Trump-class battleships between 2028 and 2056.

Chinese expert also rejects the idea

The proposal has also faced criticism in China.

One Chinese weapons and equipment specialist said the study did not show that large-calibre guns would reliably defeat drone swarms.

The specialist asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of his affiliated institution and a potential conflict of interest.

He dismissed the paper as “a lousy paper written for promotion.”

References: interestingengineering, scmp