i'm not correcting idiots as you said. first you degrade people, which is unfortunate, second not sure if you know your stuff
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
My point was that you (and the others before you) should not bother with ignorant claims from random laymen, because that's a complete waste of time. If you object to labelling such people as idiots, then I commend your tolerance. And I did not make any technical claims whatsoever, so I don't know what you meant by "know your stuff." There is no stuff to know here.
What he's saying is that there's no need for people here to complain or post grievances about media or random internet people who write bad takes.
Everyone here already knows it, and posting about it is just preaching to the choir and is tiresome.
I'm surprised they went with subpar MTOW, rather than subpar MTBO - perhaps too reminiscent of EMALS's own challenges.
I am astonished that China is leapfrogging steam catapult into such cutting edge technology so fast. It's truly a testament to Chinese engineering if they can pull this off reliably. You can't even say "Muh Copy!" if it develops more sortie rate and more reliable than US EMALS.
I am astonished that China is leapfrogging steam catapult into such cutting edge technology so fast. It's truly a testament to Chinese engineering if they can pull this off reliably. You can't even say "Muh Copy!" if it develops more sortie rate and more reliable than US EMALS.
Chinese defence spoke person about Fujian
MwRYum
Major
The goal is always the EMAL, and steam catapult is the intermediate solution - the tech is well understood, even a full (alas non-working) sample came with ex-HMAS Melbourne. The fact that they willingly suffer a 1-year delay just to modify the schematics to make 003 be outfitted with EMAL, shows its land-based version has shown enough promise to warrant such switch.
PLAN are better known as conservatives, not gamblers.
This may be falling on deaf ears or even be too late to state, but IMO the 003's catapults should NOT be called "EMALS".
EMALS is a product name for the specific General Atomics product for the US Navy on the Ford class.
The EMALS (which should really have "TM" associated with it) is product in the electromagnetic catapult category, which can be shortened to EM catapult or even EM cat if one really desires.
Calling the 003's catapults as "EMALS" is as silly as calling all faceted housing electro-optic sensors as "EOTS" when in reality "EOTS" is just the name for F-35's AAQ-40.
The most accurate name to refer to the 003's catapults should be "EM catapult" or "EM cat".
The US EMALS means Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System literally.
I think EMALS could also be abbreviation of Electro-Magnetic Assisted Launch System. In this case, EMALS can be treated a concept or general name for all EM aircraft launch systems just like LASER or SONAR, but not the name of a production of some company.
It's unlike the abbreviation AAG. We cannot call an electric-magnetic arresting systems AAG, because AAG(Advanced Arresting Gear) is something like a trademark of General Atomics and does not correctly describe the mechanism of the arresting system. I would prefer to call it EMERAS(Electro-Magnetic Energy Recovery and Arresting System) for the one on CV-18 and other future alike systems.
EMALS and EMERAS, or link them together, EMALERAS.
The US EMALS means Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System literally.
I think EMALS could also be abbreviation of Electro-Magnetic Assisted Launch System. In this case, EMALS can be treated a concept or general name for all EM aircraft launch systems just like LASER or SONAR, but not the name of a production of some company.
It's unlike the abbreviation AAG. We cannot call an electric-magnetic arresting systems AAG, because AAG(Advanced Arresting Gear) is something like a trademark of General Atomics and does not correctly describe the mechanism of the arresting system. I would prefer to call it EMERAS(Electro-Magnetic Energy Recovery and Arresting System) for the one on CV-18 and other future alike systems.
EMALS and EMERAS, or link them together, EMALERAS.
The problem is the acronym is still the same.
EMALS regardless of how you want to break down the acronym, still is the name that is first used by General Atomics for their specific product.
At the present day, "EMALS" has yet to reach the level of ubiquity that something like "laser" or "sonar" or "radar" is.
The whole point is that "EMALS" currently IS the name of a product by a company, and adopting specific product names for PLAN equivalent systems leads to the risk of misinterpretation of origin, function and details -- and at worst will actively cause confusion.
Really, we should be taking extra effort to be more precise in nomenclature and use the extra effort to be more careful.
By calling the CV-18's catapults as "EMALS" you give the risk of making people wonder "is there a relationship between the CV-18's launch system and that of the USN/Ford class" and "are they both electromagnetic catapults or are they in a separate category themselves" and "do the Chinese call their systems by an English acronym as well".
Instead, imagine if everyone only ever started referring to CV-18's catapults as "EM catapults" or "EM cats" rather than "EMALS". It means that anyone reading it would automatically recognize that it was distinct and different from the EMALS product that they would already know about from General Atomics and the USN because that product is the one which emerged first and of course is more widely known.