CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[AndrewS]

Unless this?

View attachment 91114

The top diagrams should be the closest to the ideal design

You would want all of the Energy Storage Groups to feed to a single Electrical Busbar. That single Electrical Busbar would then be able to feed any of EM catapults.

So you can afford to have some of the Energy Storage Groups fail but still provide enough electricity for a successful EM catapult launch.

But the Ford EMALS didn't have on/off switches to disconnect each individual EM catapult from the single Electrical Busbar.

 

[Atomicfrog]

The top diagrams should be the closest to the ideal design

If anything goes good it's probably the best space, power and weight wise. But if the single big Electrical Busbar goes bad, with the lacks of redundancy like at the bottom right, you are in a world of pain without any catapult able to launch planes...

 

[Blitzo]

Multiple posts deleted.

It seems that people just can't help themselves.

The below users have a warning

• Petrolicious -- stop your shitposting. You aren't the only one at fault of this, but your intransigence when someone else asks you to take it somewhere else, most certainly is.
• Hendrik_2000 -- Deino hasn't posted or participated in SDF for a while. If you have an issue with a quote that Deino made, go to a different forum to find him instead of making random posts in this thread or in SDF about him.
• Sferrin -- your "everything the PLA develops is a copy stolen from the US" shtick got old on Secretprojects years ago, and has already overstayed its welcome here. You're capable of competent discussion, so get your act together, or you won't be here on the forum for much longer.

 

[Richard Santos]

No copium is needed to acknowledge the fact that China has caught up the U.S. in EMALS technology. On the other hand, I believe China developed the EMALS technology independently. I suspect that the technology of the EMALS has something to do with their Maglev train technology more or less. Furthermore, China is also the third country, after the U.S. and France, that developed steam catapult system. But because EMALS is so much better, so they decided to forgo the traditional system.

the french and british used US designed steam catapults. The russians did develop their own steam catapults but never had the chance to put it into operational use to prove it was actually operationally serviceable. China might have been able to claim to be the second country to develop steam catapult proven to be serviceable but they also never got that far either.

As far as chinese EM catapults technology having caught up or surpassing american ones, that is also an pure aspiration without any service evidence yet. only when Fujian actually demonstrate the ability conduct sorties at a rate comparable to Ford over a fairly significant period of time can that claim actually be regarded as substantial.

putting the best possible spin on own equipment that has had no operational validation and comparing the spin to the worst possible interpretation that can be put on the actual results of real operational validation of other people’s equipment is not only idiotic, it would take an idiot who is also deeply immature to derive any pleasure from it.

 

[antiterror13]

Carrier 003 is based on Soviet designs from the 1970s.

View attachment 91097

View attachment 91098

View attachment 91099

yeapp exactly correctly, the same way that Tesla design is based on original electric car developed by William Morrison in 1891

 

[AndrewS]

If anything goes good it's probably the best space, power and weight wise. But if the single big Electrical Busbar goes bad, with the lacks of redundancy like at the bottom right, you are in a world of pain without any catapult able to launch planes...

An Electrical Busbar is literally a single solid piece of metal, with electrical cables to each of the loads (catapults) and batteries (energy storage groups).
There's no reason for one to go bad as it has no moving parts. The only thing that moves on the Busbar are the electrons.

The bottom right diagram you had looks like additional cables connecting the different busbars

 

[Michaelsinodef]

To make it clear I'm not entirely trash talking the US model of development, for example, they're far better at procuring large amounts of ships and stealth fighters, factors which are extremely useful for actually winning wars, which developments based on theoretical research is not always. I'd rather have 1000 cheap cruise missiles with poor CEP than 1 sniper accurate hypersonic missile, the latter is not gonna win any wars.

The thing is though, that China is very much able to get 100s of (cheap) accurate hypersonic missiles of various types WHILE also making 1000s of even cheaper cruise missiles and the likes.

 

[Lethe]

How does the J-15T compare the Super Hornet.

The Flanker is a superb aerodynamic platform, particularly when compared to the notoriously compromised Super Hornet design. In the naval realm the Flanker has been held back by lack of catapult launch enabling heavier payloads (including external fuel tanks for buddy tanking) and also by less sophisticated engine technology.

Once 003 and J-15T have resolved these issues, J-15 has a meaningfully higher performance ceiling than Super Hornet mostly because it is simply a larger aircraft, but also because it is a more aerodynamically sophisticated design. A fully-developed J-15 will have greater range and endurance than Super Hornet, better acceleration and top speed, generally better maneuvering characteristics, a larger and more powerful radar, and benefits from a large onboard IRST. Super Hornet will continue to feature in USN air wings at least until 2040 and the roles it will serve there as a complement to F-35B/C and eventually NGAD are the same roles J-15 will perform as a complement to the future J-31/J-35/J-XY aircraft. At comparable levels of development, Super Hornet's only performance advantage relative to J-15 would be its marginally lower RCS.

Systems and logistics >> platforms.

Yes. The advantage of Super Hornet, which it will retain in the near future, is that it has already been developed to a high level in terms of munitions compatibility, EW fitout and operation, buddy tanking, etc. J-15 has higher theoretical performance ceiling than Super Hornet, but that has yet to be achieved and will take some years to do so.

 

[Richard Santos]

yeapp exactly correctly, the same way that Tesla design is based on original electric car developed by William Morrison in 1891

that is not exactly like tesla design being based on morrison’s. there has not been any major advance in state of art in CATOBAR carrier layout between Fujian and either soviet CATOBAR designs. it is not unreasonable to say a catobar carrier designed by a house with no prior experience in the field referenced other catobar designs from anywhere in the last 60 years to arrive at their work.

 

[Atomicfrog]

An Electrical Busbar is literally a single solid piece of metal, with electrical cables to each of the loads (catapults) and batteries (energy storage groups).
There's no reason for one to go bad as it has no moving parts. The only thing that moves are the electrons.

Have seen quite big Bushbar melting or deforming making them unusable in industrial facilities (aluminum electrolysis). Damage from a hit too...can push bulkhead into it or whatever, it's a military ship..