CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

eprash

Junior Member
Registered Member
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?
 

snake65

Junior Member
VIP Professional
"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.

The characteristics of USN EMALS is open source information, no need to compare sheds, it's quoted as 95m long and accelerating 45 tons to 240 km/h. No clue where the guy got the details on Chinese cat, probably from some article describing the the EM and steam cats at the PLAN land base. Anyway, his claim of 130m vs 95m is obviously wrong. But it shouldn't come as a surprise after him saying that China used imported in 2002 German MAGLEV track as prototype.
 

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
I guess these images disprovethe prior rumor that the flight control tower windows were fully extended towards the starboard side

Not sure about that -- if anything these images show that the are window sized covers extending to the starboard side consistent with doing some kind of work on it.
 

BoraTas

Major
Registered Member
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."

Chinese EMALS has an energy storage system based on supercapacitors which is, maybe except in fire risks (which can be accounted for), superior to the flywheel-based energy storage system of the Ford. Beyond this, we have no public MTOW figure for Fujian. We can also see that Chinese catapult tracks are not noticeably longer than American ones.

So that comment is, for lack of a better description, schizophrenic. This is the description I use when someone makes specific assertions that are visibly wrong with huge confidence.
 
Top