In retrospect EMAL is the right decision since the power requirement to heat steam on a conventional carrier must be insane.
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Obviously more Chinese CVs are coming in the future. However, when talking about the strategies to deal with enemy aircraft carriers, there is another thread to do this.
What truly matters is that these aircraft launch and recovery videos officially confirms that the PLAN naval aviation have entered the CATOBAR age. This is a significant milestone for China, considering its history with aircraft carriers. It should be celebrated with this context in mind.
Last edited:
I must remind :
Type 003 represents the growth of the PLA's aircraft carrier force. However, unlike the United States, the PLA's surface fleet, and even its carrier strike groups, still not solely centered around aircraft carriers.
We need to recall the YJ series displayed at the military parade and move away from the Cold War binary of American aircraft carrier formations and Soviet aircraft cruiser formations. PLAN's carrier strike group is merging both concepts, capable of delivering the high sortie rate, long range, and diverse payload-carrying naval aviation like American aircraft carriers, while also being able to launch powerful missile salvos like the Soviet Navy.
Type 003 represents the growth of the PLA's aircraft carrier force. However, unlike the United States, the PLA's surface fleet, and even its carrier strike groups, still not solely centered around aircraft carriers.
We need to recall the YJ series displayed at the military parade and move away from the Cold War binary of American aircraft carrier formations and Soviet aircraft cruiser formations. PLAN's carrier strike group is merging both concepts, capable of delivering the high sortie rate, long range, and diverse payload-carrying naval aviation like American aircraft carriers, while also being able to launch powerful missile salvos like the Soviet Navy.
This mad-libs has been going around:
据报道，日前（）国的 福（）号航空母舰 成功用电磁弹射放飞了其配套的（）35型战机，系人类历史上首次用航母电磁弹射装置放飞五代隐身战机。
"According to reports, ______ country's F____-class aircraft carrier has successfully used its electromagnetic catapult to launch a __-35 fighter, representing the first launch of a fifth-generation stealth fighter using electromagnetic catapult technology."
Mad props to the PLAN for beating the USN.
据报道，日前（）国的 福（）号航空母舰 成功用电磁弹射放飞了其配套的（）35型战机，系人类历史上首次用航母电磁弹射装置放飞五代隐身战机。
"According to reports, ______ country's F____-class aircraft carrier has successfully used its electromagnetic catapult to launch a __-35 fighter, representing the first launch of a fifth-generation stealth fighter using electromagnetic catapult technology."
Mad props to the PLAN for beating the USN.
Does anyone know why Chinese libs are losing their shit on Twitter/Weibo/Zhihu? To me the EMAL is cool and all but not really as big of a SeeSeePee win as dual Sixth Gen testflight or May 7th turkey shoot.
aircraft carrier formations that intrude into the high seas of other countries and act recklessly are their spiritual totem.
Or to use the Guancha trio's evaluation of the H-20: it is the 鼎 of a great power. Don't ask what it is for, first of all, you have to have it, so that you can tell other countries that you are on a different level.
Now, the nation that was once subjected to the aircraft carrier's unrestrained actions—a nation they believed should remain at the great power's mercy—has come into possession of the 鼎. This represents a complete usurpation.
I was thinking WTF when people arguing "China need experience of operating steam cat to move on to EM cat" although China has neither experiences making that argument totally brainless, yet lots of people still hung onto it. I still can't figure out how that argument even came about.
Some thoughts: Considering the capabilities recently demonstrated by the Type 003 fleet, there's actually confidence to face a comparable carrier fleet after the IOC.
The only question is underwater: Is it possible that we'll see a dedicated anti-submarine aircraft similar to the S-3 in the future? Or perhaps modified base on KJ-600 airframe?
The only question is underwater: Is it possible that we'll see a dedicated anti-submarine aircraft similar to the S-3 in the future? Or perhaps modified base on KJ-600 airframe?
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Simple Hollywood approved racism. Chinese can only copy, and can only copy EXACTLY like how the superior white man did it. Even the idea that China could skip a step in its copying was a thought heresy of the highest order.
I can't stop thinking of F-35 not launched from Ford when J-35 becomes the first. The official line from US media was that Ford need modifications like workspace, maintainence space, weapon handling etc specifically required by F-35 which Ford was NOT abled to be built for because F-35's final form was unknown when Ford was under construction.
That excuse always pazzled me as "what kind of unknown could have been the stopper". So I read GAO's 2016 report on AAG again. Here is what I've found. AAG program decided to test F-18 before F-35 to meet the deadline of having a fighter certified to be deployed on Ford when it is introduced. And that is what we have seen. Any aircraft has to pass dead weitht test, then real aircraft land based roll in test before it can be tested on the ship. Why choose F-18 over F-35? We know that F-35C is one tonne heavier than F-18 in empty and loaded weight. F-35 has higher landing speed than F-18. The kinetic energy is the product of weight and speed, meaning F-35 will put a significantly higher stress on AAG. The report also listed three critical problems of AAG, 1. water twister crack, 2. cable shock absorber damage, 3. software not able to keep aircraft slide out of range sideways. All these problems are made worse if the kinetic energy is higher. And even after rectified it is still riskier to begin with a heavier aircraft. So the natural approach is to go for F-18 first.
So it is not "unable to deploy" as if it can be launched and landed on the ship for a short period, but instead it can not be done even for testing porpuse. The open excuses just avoided to acknoledge the true embarrassment.
[addition]
The "hiding away" from true reason (AAG) happened in another time ealier about AAG. General Atomic stated that the reason that they used water twisters instead of using electrical alternator only (full electric breaking) was that water twister has smaller foot-print and weight. On that I have pointed out that the true reason is EMALS/AAG uses AC grid so that there is no way that they can use full electric breaking because that electric energy has to be converted/absorbed by some means of energy storage device in the grid. GA basically spinned a technical drawback into an advantage.
Last edited: