PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

bd popeye said:

Some things to consider

I don't think the catapult will fail if properly built maintained and configured. Catapults will require constant & regular maintenance. And we are not really sure that China will jump head long into EMALs .. now are we really sure? I'm not.

In order to keep those aircraft flying a a good operational tempo they need regular daily maintenance. Otherwise they will become hangar queens. You need maintenance personnel that are trained on a particular aircraft and updated regularly.. to keep 'em flying.

There is no magic formula to keep those aircraft and the operation tempo running smoothly other than constant and deliberate "Real World" training and training and more training..And I mean REAL Training at SEA with the gear that they will be using.

They should be conducting;
...

Click to expand...

I think what we were talking about WRT MTBF was including proper training and maintenance etc all up to speed. That is to say, the MTBF only reflected the catapult's design/immaturity rather than any less than optimal crew performance.


As for the PLAN "jumping" into EMALS...

Is there a reason the PLAN shouldn't?
The implication here is that the PLAN should take the "less challenging" route which is steam catapults, before tackling the "more advanced" EMALS. However, from what I've read, there are very little cross applicable core or challenging technologies that steam catapults can be used to apply to EMALS. That is to say, one doesn't need to have "mastered" steam catapults before trying to develop EMALS.

Furthermore, China would be starting at square zero for both EMALS and steam catapult development because they had no experience in either, therefore steam catapult development could prove as troublesome as EMALS for them, if not more so.



I suspect China will skip steam cats for EMALS, and I'm very (but not completely) confident about it.
A similar example to EMALS vs steam cats, is that of AESA vs PESA radar development for China. China has more or less shunned PESA development for AESA. I suspect there are a few more precursor technologies in PESA that might have benefitted AESA development, however in this case China's existing electronics industry might have made AESA a more logical choice. However part of it was also the better performance of AESA.

I suspect the better performance of EMALS over steam and the existing technology base for EMALS which china may have (linear induction motor?), along with relative inexperience and difficulty in building a decent steam catapult, may prompt a similar shunning of steam cats.

Bltizo said:

As for the PLAN "jumping" into EMALS...

Is there a reason the PLAN shouldn't?

Click to expand...

Why yes, there is. There are decades and decades of use of steam cats by every major navy in the world that has operated CATOBAR carriers and examples of them, which the Chinese even have a copy of, and people who have operated them. Where there are no such copies, documentation, indivduals, etcs of EMALS.

Bltizo said:

The implication here is that the PLAN should take the "less challenging" route which is steam catapults, before tackling the "more advanced" EMALS. However, from what I've read, there are very little cross applicable core or challenging technologies that steam catapults can be used to apply to EMALS.

Click to expand...

There does not need to be. What there is however is a LOT of experience and documentation out there on how to do it.

How to build them. How to use them. How to operate them. How to maintain them. etc. etc. Where there are no such things for EMALS.

Bltizo said:

Furthermore, China would be starting at square zero for both EMALS and steam catapult development because they had no experience in either, therefore steam catapult development could prove as troublesome as EMALS for them, if not more so.

Click to expand...

No, actually because of the mass of experience, knowledge, and documentation that exists on steam catapults...including an examnple of one that China has in its possession...theey most certainly would not be starting at square zero for steam cats vs. electromagnetic ones.

Bltizo said:

I suspect China will skip steam cats for EMALS, and I'm very (but not completely) confident about it.

Click to expand...

Well, they may do that...but I am not at all certain of it. And I am also much more prone to listen to and give a LOT of weight to old salts like Popeye who have actually had years of experience at sea working with these things. They know what they are talking about when they suggest that the Chinese should get on with it and that steam catapults are maybe the way to go to cut their teeth.

But time will tell...and probably realtively soon (like the next 4-6 years perhaps).

bd popeye said:

Some things to consider

I don't think the catapult will fail if properly built maintained and configured. Catapults will require constant & regular maintenance. And we are not really sure that China will jump head long into EMALs .. now are we really sure? I'm not.

In order to keep those aircraft flying a a good operational tempo they need regular daily maintenance. Otherwise they will become hangar queens. You need maintenance personnel that are trained on a particular aircraft and updated regularly.. to keep 'em flying.

There is no magic formula to keep those aircraft and the operation tempo running smoothly other than constant and deliberate "Real World" training and training and more training..And I mean REAL Training at SEA with the gear that they will be using.

They should be conducting;

Rig the barricade drills,
Firefighting Drills.
Engineering Drills
Real RAS and VERTREPS.
Weapons movement..loading and unloading.
Mass casualty drills.
Manuvering drills.
Man overboard drills.
General Quarters or Action Stations drills.
ENCOM drills
Real Darken Ship evolutions.
Etc..Etc.. Etc....

Click to expand...

How much of a transition for a steam catapult maintenance and engineer crew had to adjust to an EMAL one?

bd popeye said:

Some things to consider

I don't think the catapult will fail if properly built maintained and configured. Catapults will require constant & regular maintenance. And we are not really sure that China will jump head long into EMALs .. now are we really sure? I'm not.

Click to expand...

I think that, regardless of the technical challenges, the body of evidence indicates that China intends to jump straight to an EMALS. The academic paper by78 posted in fact directly said as much in the abstract.

Jeff Head said:

Why yes, there is. There are decades and decades of use of steam cats by every major navy in the world that has operated CATOBAR carriers and examples of them, which the Chinese even have a copy of, and people who have operated them. Where there are no such copies, documentation, indivduals, etcs of EMALS.

There does not need to be. What there is however is a LOT of experience and documentation out there on how to do it.

How to build them. How to use them. How to operate them. How to maintain them. etc. etc. Where there are no such things for EMALS.

No, actually because of the mass of experience, knowledge, and documentation that exists on steam catapults...including an examnple of one that China has in its possession...theey most certainly would not be starting at square zero for steam cats vs. electromagnetic ones.

Well, they may do that...but I am not at all certain of it. And I am also much more prone to listen to and give a LOT of weight to old salts like Popeye who have actually had years of experience at sea working with these things. They know what they are talking about when they suggest that the Chinese should get on with it and that steam catapults are maybe the way to go to cut their teeth.

But time will tell...and probably realtively soon (like the next 4-6 years perhaps.

Click to expand...

China's military development hasn't been so conservative that they've only pursued projects with decades of documentation and human capital. In some senses though I don't think they'll be jumping into EMAL catapult with zero technical experience, and in fact I would argue they have a more thorough indigenous experience with the technologies that go into EMAL than with steam.

Jeff Head said:

Why yes, there is. There are decades and decades of use of steam cats by every major navy in the world that has operated CATOBAR carriers and examples of them, which the Chinese even have a copy of, and people who have operated them. Where there are no such copies, documentation, indivduals, etcs of EMALS.

There does not need to be. What there is however is a LOT of experience and documentation out there on how to do it.

How to build them. How to use them. How to operate them. How to maintain them. etc. etc. Where there are no such things for EMALS.

Click to expand...

True, those are all good points, however whether they provide enough of a rationale for the PLAN to actually pursue steam catapults alongside/before EMALS is another matter entirely.

I'm not going to delve deeper into this discussion, but where I sit basically hinges on two things:
1: how much use is the PLAN's available steam catapult technology/documentation/information that they've acquired from various sources
2 (and more importantly): where did China's industry sit WRT the core technologies necessary for steam cats and EMALS respectively, when catapult development started a few years ago.

No, actually because of the mass of experience, knowledge, and documentation that exists on steam catapults...including an examnple of one that China has in its possession...theey most certainly would not be starting at square zero for steam cats vs. electromagnetic ones.

Click to expand...

Maybe saying square zero was a little bit harsh, how about square 0.5 for steam cats and square 0 for EM, in the long run.

Having an ancient steam catapult from the HMAS melbourne was probably more beneficial to the PLAN than not having one if they wanted to build a steam catapult, agreed. But whether they had the industry to develop a steam catapult easier than an EM catapult, as I've posted, is another matter.

Well, they may do that...but I am not at all certain of it. And I am also much more prone to listen to and give a LOT of weight to old salts like Popeye who have actually had years of experience at sea working with these things. They know what they are talking about when they suggest that the Chinese should get on with it and that steam catapults are maybe the way to go to cut their teeth.

Click to expand...

With all due respect to popeye, while I always have open ears (or eyes, rather) for his practical insight into carrier matters, I think the key two questions I listed above are not ones he can answer, and the statements he can provide probably won't lend much to whether China's industry was better suited for EM or steam cat development.

But time will tell...and probably realtively soon (like the next 4-6 years perhaps.

Click to expand...

That could be the motto for all PLA watchers lol. We should put that on a plaque.

latenlazy said:

I think that, regardless of the technical challenges, the body of evidence indicates that China intends to jump straight to an EMALS. The academic paper by78 posted in fact directly said as much in the abstract.

Click to expand...

Care to provide a basic summary/translation of the paper?

Please and thank you

Bltizo said:

Care to provide a basic summary/translation of the paper?

Please and thank you

Click to expand...

I skimmed it a bit, but there are a lot of technical terms that I'll need to familiarize myself with. Maybe I'll provide a summary later tonight, but it mostly just talks about the necessary technologies that go into an EMAL catapult (such as using a fly wheel to store power), and some of the US's history with the development of EMAL catapults.

Bltizo said:

Care to provide a basic summary/translation of the paper?

Please and thank you

Click to expand...

If it was the one I translated for by78, the trnslation is on the page before this one. I have a pretty decent trnslator available to me and it did a fairly decent job.

I indicated at the time that there was a lot of decent stuff in there. About the cat, about all electric propulsion and about AIP. Now, how much of it actually equates into right now, or near term deployable systems is another matter that we will just have to wait and see...but still, a lot of really good information and background material nonetheless.

BTW, bltizo, looks like you will soon be the next member of our SD 5,000 post club! Looking forward to it.

Jeff Head said:

If it was the one I translated for by78, the trnslation is on the page before this one. I have a pretty decent trnslator available to me and it did a fairly decent job.

I indicated at the time that there was a lot of decent stuff in there. About the cat, about all electric propulsion and about AIP. Now, how much of it actually equates into right now, or near term deployable systems is another matter that we will just have to wait and see...but still, a lot of good information and background material nonetheless.

Click to expand...

Nah, I'm talking about the academic article in post #1800

And latenlazy and by78 had dug up a previous incarnation of the article you translated, and found that it doesn't explictly mention the prototypes being EMALS, but that's what it highly hints at, especially combining the academic review article by78 posted.

Equation said:

How much of a transition for a steam catapult maintenance and engineer crew had to adjust to an EMAL one?

Click to expand...

I really don't know. So far only one ship has email cats. I'm sure the emal cats will require the same or more maintaince.

If China's first indigenous CV has email cats...I will be pleasantly surprised.