China’s radical new “X-rail gun” aims to fire 60-kilo slugs at Mach 7 speeds, raising the stakes in a railgun race where Beijing doubles down, Tokyo hedges bets and Washington taps out.
This month, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that Chinese army scientists led by Professor Lyu Qingao of the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Army Engineering University have proposed a novel electromagnetic weapon design that could significantly enhance rail gun performance.
Their “X-rail gun” concept cross-stacks two U-armatures vertically within a shared 200mm-square barrel, creating a dual-circuit system that harnesses “vertical fields that ignore each other” to mitigate electromagnetic interference.
Filed as a patent last year, the design aims to accelerate a 60kg shell to Mach 7—delivering impacts at over Mach 4—potentially striking targets 400km away within six minutes.
While still untested in live-fire conditions and facing challenges from proximity effect complications in tight conductor paths, the concept builds upon proven tech to overcome limitations in shell weight, bore pressure and barrel erosion.
Unlike the navy’s earlier rail gun prototype spotted on a Type 072 destroyer in 2018—which struggled with extreme current damage and capped shell weights at 15 kilograms—the army’s configuration represents a rare leap forward.
It also contrasts sharply with the US decision to end its rail gun program in 2021 and Japan’s cautious testing of 300-gram electromagnetic prototypes.
Asia Times has previously noted that Japan deployed a prototype electromagnetic railgun aboard the test ship JS Asuka.
Developed by the Japanese Ministry of Defense’s Acquisition, Technology and Logistics Agency (ATLA), it fires projectiles at Mach 6.5 using electromagnetic energy, sidestepping the cost and magazine limitations of missile-based systems.
The weapon offers high-volume, rapid-fire potential but still faces hurdles, including barrel erosion, power supply miniaturization and fire control integration.
ATLA mentions that Japan envisions its railgun to counter hypersonic missiles as part of a multi-layered air defense suite. It also notes the system can mount hard-to-avoid strikes against ships or land targets, with its hypersonic muzzle velocity and extended range making it difficult to intercept.
In contrast, the US halted its Electromagnetic Railgun (EMRG) project for multiple reasons. An April 2022 US Congressional Research Service (CRS) report mentions that it suffers from poor durability, with barrel lifespans rarely exceeding 100 rounds, in contrast to conventional artillery’s thousands.
The report notes that its large pulse power sources—up to ten times heavier than comparable cannons—render it incompatible with mobile platforms. It also states that it lacks rifling, reducing accuracy, and remains vulnerable to even near-miss attacks due to delicate electronics.
The report adds that EMRG efficiency remains below 30%, demanding massive power supplies. Coupled with high costs and diminished artillery relevance in missile-dominated warfare, these factors ultimately undermined its viability.
The diverging paths taken by China, Japan, and the US reflect broader uncertainty about railgun utility in modern combat. Whether next-gen railgun systems can provide missile-like firepower at artillery costs without turning vulnerable warships into prime targets remains in question.
Stew Magnusson, in a June 2025 article in National Defense Magazine, notes that a railgun projectile, traveling at hypersonic speeds without any explosives, could cause severe damage. For instance, ATLA demonstrated how one could penetrate a ship’s hull and exit the other side.
Alan Kuperman, in an April 2021 working paper for the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Project (NPPP), notes that railguns could significantly reduce ammunition costs, with a $25,000 projectile being vastly cheaper than multi-million-dollar interceptors or anti-ship missiles.
In line with Kuperman’s statements, Matt Bruzzese and Peter Singer state in a March 2024 Defense One article that these weapons aim to combine the extended range and precision of missiles and rockets with the affordability of traditional artillery.
Bruzzese and Singer note that this could transform the cost dilemma faced by modern militaries, where even effective systems become prohibitively expensive or overwhelmed by large numbers of cheaper enemy weapons. They point out that US forces near Yemen use interceptor missiles that cost at least three orders of magnitude more than the drones they target.
Still, Braden Allenby cautions in a January 2022 Stars and Stripes article that the technology is much less developed than conventional guns or missiles. While railguns can theoretically offer superior firepower, the technology is not yet mature.
Allenby adds that it may be reasonable for major powers to rely on missiles in the short term while investing in railguns for the long term.
Mounting them presents a logistical challenge. These weapons may require large warships like cruisers or destroyers capable of supporting their size, weight, cooling, and power needs, concentrating capability on a limited number of potentially vulnerable platforms.
James Stavridis, in an October 2024 Washington Post article, highlights this vulnerability. He mentions that Ukraine’s crippling of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet—including the sinking of the cruiser Moskva by drones and missiles—underscores the growing susceptibility of large surface warships to cheap, precise unmanned systems.
He points out that despite lacking a navy, Ukraine has knocked out a third of Russia’s fleet, forcing it to retreat from coastal operations, with these attacks, echoed by Houthi strikes in the Red Sea, highlighting a paradigm shift in naval warfare.
He adds that ships now face swarms of inexpensive drones, which deplete their missile stockpiles. While future defenses may rely on lasers or possibly railguns, he notes, warships remain exposed in an evolving battlefield dominated by asymmetric threats.
Sidharth Kaushal, in a March 2023 European Security and Defense (ESD) article, acknowledges the rising threat from proliferating anti-ship missiles, including cruise, ballistic, and hypersonic types, but emphasizes that modern warships are not defenseless.
While fast, long-range missiles strain reaction times and impose severe cost asymmetries, he argues that their effectiveness is limited by complex kill chains, targeting challenges, and physical constraints.
He notes that cueing long-range weapons, such as China’s DF-21D or Russia’s Zircon, requires persistent intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), real-time data relay, and multi-platform coordination—vulnerable to disruption.
He adds that shipboard defenses like Aegis, layered interceptors, decoys, and electronic warfare—and railguns, should the technology mature—offer credible protection, though saturation attacks pose risks.
Despite no promise of invulnerability, he points out, a missile has yet to sink any modern air defense warship on alert.
Whether railguns revolutionize warfare or remain lab-bound curiosities, China, Japan and the US are gambling on very different answers to the same battlefield question.
