You say that, but going by their development times, they emerged around the same time (within a few years of each other which is pretty damn close for this kind of system).
Doubt there was much second mover advantage here.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
You say that, but going by their development times, they emerged around the same time (within a few years of each other which is pretty damn close for this kind of system).
Doubt there was much second mover advantage here.
Do you have a source for this? I find it hard to believe such a power-intensive system would be taking an effeciency loss from DC conversion unless there were major benefits.
That's the reason why China says their system is superior.
I also read a couple of scientific papers on the Chinese DC systems, but I don't have the links anymore.
If I understand correctly, you are questioning the reason of DC grid because you believe that there is a efficiency loss for AC-DC conversion, am I right?
If my understanding is right, the short answer is DC grid can be more efficient than AC grid on a military ship.
First of all, all generators generate electricity in form of AC. However current high power semiconductor device integrated in the generator casing can convert to DC right out of the generator with very low loss. In AC grid there is induction loss because the power wire and the surrounding metal ship structure make up like induction loop in the same way as an AC motor. So AC current will be generated within the ship taking away part of energy, that is a loss. This happens in a land power grid too. This does not happen in a DC grid.
There are also many other advantages of DC grid, some of them can save energy but the list is too long to put here.
The impact of different grid (DC and AC) is not really the core issue of Ford or 003 because neither of them are IEPS. It would be a core issue in IEPS because >70% of electricity goes to the propeller. Ford and 003 only have EM catapult which isn't big enough to cause serious problem. But I can imagine DC grid being advantageous even in EM catapult application. It is my speculation because we don't have details of the Chinese EM cat, not even a clear picture.
The problem of Ford class' EMALS and AAG is a separate question about reliability. The article did not say anything. We know the existence of reliability problem has been there from day one. Without new input by the article, it could be just the same issues.
Last edited:
Intrepid
Major
The USA is active worldwide and the respective armed forces on site need the aircraft carriers for their protection. The problem is that CVN 65 has long been decommissioned and CVN 78 is far from ready for action.
China does not want to get involved worldwide until sometime in the future and can afford years of tests with an aircraft carrier specially built for this purpose. The Chinese Navy is nowhere near as pressured as the US Navy.
China does not want to get involved worldwide until sometime in the future and can afford years of tests with an aircraft carrier specially built for this purpose. The Chinese Navy is nowhere near as pressured as the US Navy.
The issues with EMALS did not show up before China started its own EM catapult program, even the US did not anticipate the troubles they are going to face back then.
Intrepid
Major
The shore installation with one catapult and one energy storage was without these problems. The ship installation with four catapults and three energy storages has the problems.