CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Maikeru]

TWZ article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Not much we don't already know and the usual copium in the comments, but the EMALS video is interesting, Also, one of the comments claims Fujian's EMCATS need 50% greater length than Ford's because of the power system used (non-storage DC v storage based AC), is there any truth in this?

"The Chinese EMALS is powered by 1.5kVDC rather than 13.8kVAC, has no energy storage system, and requires nearly 50% more track length while being rated for lower MTOWs. It bears no similarities whatsoever to GA’s system beyond using the same principles of physics."

 

[KampfAlwin]

Clearer pics of the deck, you can see the observation deck has been raised.

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

TWZ article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Not much we don't already know and the usual copium in the comments, but the EMALS video is interesting, Also, one of the comments claims Fujian's EMCATS need 50% greater length than Ford's because of the power system used (non-storage DC v storage based AC), is there any truth in this?

"The Chinese EMALS is powered by 1.5kVDC rather than 13.8kVAC, has no energy storage system, and requires nearly 50% more track length while being rated for lower MTOWs. It bears no similarities whatsoever to GA’s system beyond using the same principles of physics."

It should be obvious that Fujian's catapults aren't 50% longer than Ford's. That alone should clue you in about the mental capacity and intellectual rigor of the individual who posted that comment.

As for the subject of CV-18's power system, we have first hand documents about it: CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

 

[ACuriousPLAFan]

"The Chinese EMALS is powered by 1.5kVDC rather than 13.8kVAC, has no energy storage system, and requires nearly 50% more track length while being rated for lower MTOWs. It bears no similarities whatsoever to GA’s system beyond using the same principles of physics."

Just one of the many copium comments, which exhibits the inability to face reality, as usual.

"No energy storage system"?

Then how do the EMALS catapults even work then? Fujian utilizes supercapacitors, unlike the Ford which utilizes flywheels.

"Requires nearly 50% more track length while rated for lower MTOW"?

Even by using the EMALS catapult work sheds on both CV-18 Fujian and CVN-79 John F Kennedy for the sake of comparison (since clearer satellite photos of the EMALS catapults without work sheds for Fujian isn't available for now), the measured length for the work sheds on Fujian and JFK using Google Maps are ~120 meters and ~112 meters, respectively.

Even if the measurement using Google Maps is not exact, I'm not sure how ~120 meters is anywhere "nearly 50% longer" than ~112 meters. Also, should I note that the work shed on Fujian actually extends closer to the jet blast deflectors than the JFK?

Plus, if anything - Even the STOBAR variant of the J-15 actually weighs slightly heavier than the F-35C at MTOW, at ~32.5 tons and ~31.8 tons respectively. The CATOBAR variant, i.e. J-15B can only be heavier.

50% more track length with lower MTOW my arse. No wonder articles like this exists:

 

[TK3600]

Whoever said 50% longer track has math taught by PE teacher.

But this is US, it may be actually true.

 

[Blitzo]

TWZ article:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Not much we don't already know and the usual copium in the comments, but the EMALS video is interesting, Also, one of the comments claims Fujian's EMCATS need 50% greater length than Ford's because of the power system used (non-storage DC v storage based AC), is there any truth in this?

"The Chinese EMALS is powered by 1.5kVDC rather than 13.8kVAC, has no energy storage system, and requires nearly 50% more track length while being rated for lower MTOWs. It bears no similarities whatsoever to GA’s system beyond using the same principles of physics."

Writing up incorrect claims and nonsense which happens to have random details, doesn't make the claims any less incorrect or nonsense.

 

[Aswin_hht]

Writing up incorrect claims and nonsense which happens to have random details, doesn't make the claims any less incorrect or nonsense.

True but sadly these kind of “authentic looking science sprinkled nonsense” is what often misleads people in so many forums, especially when spoken with complete confidence. There really isn’t many knowledgeable people to correct or challenge these statements in many places.

 

[Deino]

Clearer pics of the deck, you can see the observation deck has been raised.
View attachment 122022

View attachment 122019View attachment 122018

Which observation deck do you mean?

 

[Kejora]

Which observation deck do you mean?

this one probably.

 

[Blitzo]

Clearer pics of the deck, you can see the observation deck has been raised.
View attachment 122022

View attachment 122019View attachment 122018

this one probably.
View attachment 122026

The catapult control station (or "bubble") is indeed raised, but calling it an "observation station" somewhat plays down its significance, if that is what he was referring to.