CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Jj888]

Well, you have to start somewhere, poverty or not.

Remember that the USS Enterprise CVN-65, the first ever nuclear-powered aircraft carrier/supercarrier of the US Navy (or in fact, the world's first), has 8 nuclear reactors. It was only from Nimitz onwards that the number went down to 4, and then from Ford onwards that the number went down to 2.

In essence, Enterprise CVN-65 is a sort-of prototype carrier that tests marine nuclear propulsion technology for carrier usage. After Enterprise CVN-65 was comissioned in 1961, it wasn't until 1968 when the Nimitz was laid down.

Although I hope that China would fast-track build an improved version of conventionally-powered 003 following the Fujian in light of the present deteriorating geopolitical situation in the Western Pacific, I believe a mixed conventional-nuclear propulsion system for the 004 is also a good way to advance the mastering of carrier-based nuclear propulsion operations by the PLAN.

But if the PLAN has mastered nuclear propulsion technology for carrier usage and are confident of their capabilities, then a full-on nuclear propulsion system for the 004 is also a good way to go.

(Although we all hope that China could just pump out those (005) nuclear-powered supercarriers to scare the shit outta everyone else, lol)

Similarly, the designers have taken into consideration the size & speed of the 2 new elevators which i guess should be superior to the older usa elevators.

The EMALS surely have higher launch rates than steam powered. Fujian also have a smaller number of aircraft to launch too.

When these new technologies are compared to older tech & designs it might not be fully compatible.

Let’s continue to witness the growing up of the Chinese Navy

 

[JamesRed]

Maybe because they have a well-functioning secret service, were aware of American problems early on and didn't have to make the same mistakes.

The best decision was probably not to feed four catapults from three energy storage systems via a complex distribution mechanism, but to feed the associated catapult three times directly from one energy storage system (just as it worked smoothly in the American test facility on land).

It should be noted, however, that the Chinese use a different energy storage system than the Americans. To my knowledge, a Chinese energy storage system does not consist of four flywheels. I don't know what it's made of though.

Either the American system is flawed beyond something that is simple, which China could benefit from espionage or it's a simple mistake and China would not benefit from stealing the technology. Very unsurprising that an American would claim that both the mistake made was simple and that the reason the Chinese avoided the mistake was not because of engineering competence, but rather because of espionage.

 

[Intrepid]

Either the American system is flawed beyond something that is simple, which China could benefit from espionage or it's a simple mistake and China would not benefit from stealing the technology. Very unsurprising that an American would claim that both the mistake made was simple and that the reason the Chinese avoided the mistake was not because of engineering competence, but rather because of espionage.

Perhaps "mistake" is the wrong term. During the development process you have to make decisions. Even if you find out later that another path could have been better, you cannot simply leave the path you have chosen. Those who follow the development at a distance can make different decisions.

 

[Kich]

Around 20 years ago the lead designer of the F-14 Tomcat and a retired US Navy Admiral published a joint article calling for an Americanised Su-33 to replace the F-14 Tomcat in USN service.

Obviously that didn't happen, but yeah... a fully-realised, catapult-launched J-15 has a significantly higher performance ceiling than Super Hornet and will no doubt serve PLAN well in the medium-term.

The Type 003 and upcoming 004 will make J-15 flanker variant potentially the most powerful 4th gen naval aircraft in the world. With the catapult launch, the flanker can launch with great weapons load and fuel and no limits.

 

[Blitzo]

thanks and could you provide a translation of the signs

i still cannot believe how China has mastered the EMALS when the USN is having so much trouble

unbelievable

The same end result can be achieved through a number of different engineering solutions, we do not know how the PLAN EM catapult differs to the USN EMALS.

Also, we have yet to see the PLAN's EM catapults fully operate in a maritime environment to how the USN EMALS have already operated aboard Ford, so even despite the extensive land based testing that the PLAN's EM catapults would have done, it is a bit early to say that they have "mastered" it. No need for superlatives.

 

[enroger]

Do we know for sure what type of energy storage system 003 uses? Flywheel or capacitors?

 

[Michaelsinodef]

Additional elevator does not necessarily take away deck space. It merely means there Is the same deck space which can, when needed, also be utilised as an elevator.

From the recent livestream on Guancha, they very EXPLICITLY said that elevators kind of actually takes away deck space.
Not for parking aircrafts, but for 'preparation' of aircrafts (fueling, putting on bombs/missiles etc.), and at the end of the day it's an elevator and not actual deck space, what are you gonna do if it breaks down in a 'down' or 'half' position?

Whilst the US naval fleet may bounce back after 2030, it doesn't change how China should end up with more carriers than the US by 2050.

That would simply be the result of China having a significantly larger economy and military spending than the US. So why would China have to act when it only has 4 carriers, when it could have more than 11 in 2050 and then outnumber the US carrier fleet?

A similar calculation applies to every other military system.

And if China has a commanding economic and military presence in the Western Pacific, the Taiwan issue likely wouldn't require an actual war.

No, I very much think China will take back Taiwan within this decade (I also think there's pretty good confidence internally of the PLA/CMC of their various missiles and the capabilities of the PLA).

Video: Ma Weimin (Please translating for others, I have not had time to watch it, sorry)

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Not done watching, but it's a good video imo, and have some really interesting/good info about Ma Weimin

 

[Intrepid]

Problems with the US EMALS:

Perhaps even more serious is that the design makes it impossible for the crew to repair a catapult while the ship is launching planes with other catapults. This is done as a

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

on current carriers as each catapult operates independently of the other. When one of the steam catapults fails, the crew can make the necessary repairs while the adjacent catapults continue launching planes.

Like earlier carriers, The Ford has four launch catapults so that (theoretically), should one fail, the ship could continue operations using the remaining three. But the Navy found there is no way to electrically isolate each EMALS catapult from the others

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

, raising questions about the system’s operational suitability. The massive electrical charge needed to power the catapults is stored in three Energy Storage Groups, each using four heavy flywheel-generators. The three groups together power all four catapults and cannot be electrically disconnected from a single failed catapult to allow repairs while the other three catapults launch planes.

This means that repairing the failed catapult must wait until all flight operations have been completed, or, in the event that multiple launchers fail, all flights may have to be suspended to allow repairs. Thus there is the possibility that the ship might not be able to launch any planes at a critical moment because the EMALS designers failed to provide independent power for each of the four catapults.

Source:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

I assume a different concept was chosen for 003 Fujian.

 

[AndrewS]

The same end result can be achieved through a number of different engineering solutions, we do not know how the PLAN EM catapult differs to the USN EMALS.

Also, we have yet to see the PLAN's EM catapults fully operate in a maritime environment to how the USN EMALS have already operated aboard Ford, so even despite the extensive land based testing that the PLAN's EM catapults would have done, it is a bit early to say that they have "mastered" it. No need for superlatives.

The design deficiencies of the US EM catapults on the Ford have been been known for years now, specifically where all 4 of the catapult motors are permanently coupled to all 3 of the energy storage groups, which means a single fault in any of these subsystems requires the entire system to be powered down and flight operations to cease.

It would be incredible if the Chinese Navy wasn't aware of this and has installed electrical circuit breakers to allow individual subsystems to be isolated and fixed - so that flight operations can continue with the remaining subsystems.

So I think it is fair to say that the Chinese Navy is installing a more advanced EMALS system than the US Navy has with the Ford.

 

[Michaelsinodef]

The same end result can be achieved through a number of different engineering solutions, we do not know how the PLAN EM catapult differs to the USN EMALS.

Also, we have yet to see the PLAN's EM catapults fully operate in a maritime environment to how the USN EMALS have already operated aboard Ford, so even despite the extensive land based testing that the PLAN's EM catapults would have done, it is a bit early to say that they have "mastered" it. No need for superlatives.

Wasn't there something about there being a difference in one being AC (US) and the other being DC?

Although I don't think we have gotten 100% confirmation of that.