Why isn't it fixed in place any reason it can be lowered?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.
Why isn't it fixed in place any reason it can be lowered?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.
You'd lower it to present a flush flight deck. No obstructions means a safer area.Why isn't it fixed in place any reason it can be lowered?
"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.
I guess these images disprovethe prior rumor that the flight control tower windows were fully extended towards the starboard sideClearer pics of the deck, you can see the observation deck has been raised.
View attachment 122022
View attachment 122019View attachment 122018
I guess these images disprovethe prior rumor that the flight control tower windows were fully extended towards the starboard side
Clearer pics of the deck, you can see the observation deck has been raised.
View attachment 122022
View attachment 122019View attachment 122018
TWZ article:
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."
That island superstructure looks rather far from being ready... Maiden sea trial only in 2024, perhaps?
Isn't the scaffolding just for final paintjob?That island superstructure looks rather far from being ready... Maiden sea trials only in 2024, perhaps?
Maybe it's the same person who claimed, earlier this year, the Type 003 has developed cracks on the flight deck.....I think we all remember that story.Whoever said 50% longer track has math taught by PE teacher.
But this is US, it may be actually true.