You can ask the designers to design the ship and its production process with and without these restrictions and ask what the costs would be in each case in money and in time in the shipyard chosen and then decide. For one example I can imagine that the choice for a single steam cat flattop in a fleet with EM cats will be unacceptable and that they would prefer to leave room for the EM cat installation but temporarily use a ski ramp. The possible choices are many and we are in no position to guess which arguments would be most important.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Is there any report that the Chinese steam-cat is more ready than the EM-cat?
Intrepid
Major
They prepare for both simultanously.
Okay... In which case I return to my previous point: isn't it more likely that the lack of the hazard lines and the presence of those lines in the two differing pictures much more likely to be because one picture was taken earlier before the lines were painted, and the other was taken after it was painted?
I also see no indication of the deflectors being up or down in either of the two pictures, they look both down/flat to me...
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Go to this thread https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/j-15-carrier-multirole-fighter-thread.t6768/page-161
Henri K wrote development time line of both EM and Steam catapult. Apparently they built steam catapult testing facility in 2010. So they have been testing and perfecting the Steam CAT for 6 years now .
So I am pretty sure they are past prototype stages and into production model now
China receive a working model of Melbourne class carrier with steam cat in working condition back in 1980 if I am not wrong . So I bet they dismantle it and studied it Than they have 10-20 years to tinker with it get the right parameter and building model until prototype stage completed in 2010 . They then test the prototype . So it is fairly long development time.
Emal is quite recent but it benefit a lot from improvement in China linear traction from maglev and other civilian application. Plus the head of development team is a genius forget his name
Ok got it Ma Weiming go to this thread for more about China emal
Last edited:
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Melbourne was paid off from RAN service in 1982. A proposal to convert her for use as a floating casino failed, and a 1984 sale was cancelled, before she was sold for scrap in 1985 and towed to China for . The scrapping was delayed so Melbourne could be studied by the (PLAN) as part of a secret project to develop a and used to train PLAN aviators in carrier flight operations.
Sorry Hendrik I have always find it hard to belief the catapult on the Melbourne had been handed over intact, all its electronics and weapons were removed and so will be the critical components of the catapult. What they most probably did then is figure out how the missing components fit in and came up with their own solution with solutions they collected espionage. My two cents.
That seems to be the case. The sun light had an angle off the center line of the runway. If the deflactors were raised, there should be some off-angled or distorted shadows above them.
Hendrik_2000
Lieutenant General
Well did you read the post mortem of Melbourne Here it is. The steam cat technology doesn't change much over the year. the thermodynamic is well understood. What the Chinese need is a model to built upon. And the design of critical component like sealing etc. Of course their technical demonstrator will be different than Melbourne model, let alone the prototype. How else can they do it since no one helping them and they never built carrier before. Russia and Ukraine are no help here.
It is very common in engineering to check what the competitor does and work around patent.RE it the best and quickest way to build something if you never built it before
The Australian didn't remove the cat because the think it will be useless or they think the Chinese won't figure it out
Prior to the ship's departure for China, the RAN stripped Melbourne of all electronic equipment and weapons, and welded her rudders into a fixed position so that she could not be reactivated. However, her steam catapult, arresting equipment and mirror landing system were not removed. At this time, few western experts expected that the Chinese Government would attempt to develop aircraft carriers in the future. The carrier departed Sydney on 27 April 1985, heading for , China, under the tow of tug De Ping. The journey was delayed when the towing line began to part, requiring the carrier and tug to shelter in , Queensland, on 30 April.
Last edited:
Also, if the deflectors were raised we would probably see the actual JBD itself raised, because when they are raised they are not perfectly at right angles with the flight deck (in this case, the tarmac of the airstrip), but rather at a slightly sub-90 degree angle (about 45 degrees actually), meaning we would probably be able to see a much more obvious JBD raised even from satellite pictures.
Whereas in this case, the difference between the two photos is only the presence of the painted lines, and that is most simply explained by having those lines painted on in the later photo.
So yeah, I don't think it looks anything like the JBDs are raised at all.