PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
I am not an expert here, so will sound kind of stupid to most of you out there. But I was wondering, if it was possible for the Chinese to have both steam cat and EMALS at the same time... maybe two or one steam cat and one experimental EMALS in the carrier, so that while the carrier still function normally with steam cat, they can get first hand result and data of the EMALS in sea and under real operation?
 
Intrepid

Intrepid

Major
rhino123 said:
I am not an expert here, so will sound kind of stupid to most of you out there. But I was wondering, if it was possible for the Chinese to have both steam cat and EMALS at the same time... maybe two or one steam cat and one experimental EMALS in the carrier, so that while the carrier still function normally with steam cat, they can get first hand result and data of the EMALS in sea and under real operation?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure that they are preparing for both and install EAMLS when ready for use, and steam if not.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
That is assuming their steam catapults are mature enough in the first place to be considered a safe bet. And that is really the big question we're all wondering -- have there been PLAN development into steam catapults alongside or precluding EMALS, and is it at a stage where it can be operationally deployed?

If the answer to both of those is yes, then we'll need to ask where EMALS development and/or reliability compares to steam catapult, as well as how badly the PLAN wants CATOBAR capability, not to mention whether the additional costs of maintaining a logistics line (for what will likely be a limited implementation of steam catapults) is worth it in the long run.

So it's not quite as simple as it is made out to be.
 
M

Melcane

New Member
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
That is assuming their steam catapults are mature enough in the first place to be considered a safe bet. And that is really the big question we're all wondering -- have there been PLAN development into steam catapults alongside or precluding EMALS, and is it at a stage where it can be operationally deployed?

If the answer to both of those is yes, then we'll need to ask where EMALS development and/or reliability compares to steam catapult, as well as how badly the PLAN wants CATOBAR capability, not to mention whether the additional costs of maintaining a logistics line (for what will likely be a limited implementation of steam catapults) is worth it in the long run.

So it's not quite as simple as it is made out to be.
Click to expand...
 
M

Melcane

New Member
Registered Member
Keep in mind steam catapults are difficult to master. PLANF is not handling any steam catapult in any ship.
EMALS are easier to master and handle and are much more flexible/cheaper.
PLANF I am confident would go along the electromagnetic path. They are working on it since 2000 in R&D and experimental environment. They are getting help from EU and Israel also in this regard. They would not waste time and resources in steam catapults and then run after EMALS.
In aero engines, naval ships, fighter and aircraft carrier systems PLANF is getting USA/EU/Israeli help directly or indirectly. Example is F-35 J-31 link. They ie US etc do not want PLA wholly dependent on Russia.
World is a strange theatre in defence and policy.
 
L

latenlazy

Brigadier
As someone I follow for tech once said about the electric car "turns out making a car run on electricity is easier than making it run on controlled explosions". The mechanics and physics of steam catapults are actually more difficult than for EMALS.
 
rhino123

rhino123

Pencil Pusher
VIP Professional
By the way, I always has the impression that the first locally built carrier will be a conventional carrier (I might be wrong though). Could the power generator of conventional carrier be strong enough to support EMALS? I have read of conventional aircraft carriers that have steam catapult though.
 
M

Melcane

New Member
Registered Member
Pneumatics system devices, steam network, translation into speed of aircraft, feedback control system FBCS and steam pressure controlling devices are extremely difficult to run/control efficiently. THEIR DESIGN needs extra margins for safe operations. Wear and tear is enormous, devices are numerous, replacement is time/labour intensive and flexibility is extremely low. Steam catapults can attain between 230-255kmh speed. EMALS can achieve 300-500kmh easily and can handle larger weights/volumes. EM system runs in sections and sectional area handling aircraft is active, Other section are energised to enable them to turn on as the need arises. It reduces the launch time and increases the number of missions to be launched.
Electronic controls system can be duplicated multiple times and has ability to quadruple the control capacity. PLAN does not need steam catapults.
 
M

Melcane

New Member
Registered Member
rhino123 said:
By the way, I always has the impression that the first locally built carrier will be a conventional carrier (I might be wrong though). Could the power generator of conventional carrier be strong enough to support EMALS? I have read of conventional aircraft carriers that have steam catapult though.
Click to expand...
It would need nuclear reactors with 2-3 power generators to support EMALS, systems and ACC propulsion requirements. That is achievable.
 
S

schenkus

Junior Member
Registered Member
Melcane said:
It would need nuclear reactors with 2-3 power generators to support EMALS, systems and ACC propulsion requirements. That is achievable.
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, EMALS isn't directly connected to the ship's electric system but has its own "power storage" system that is charged by the ship's power.

If you rely on EMALS to launch a lot of aircraft in a short time, the ship will need to supply a lot of power to "recharge" your catapults fast enough.

A STOBAR carrier with an additional waist catapult could take a lot more time to charge its catapult and thus need a lot less power from the ship.

This would limit the rate of "catapult launched" aircraft to perhaps 1 every 2 or 3 minutes but still give the carrier an additional capability and provide a realistic test environment for the catapult.

I think such a configuration would be a reasonably low risk step forward (because the carrier is still as good as the liaoning if the emals has problems) while providing a carrier that would still be relevant in a future when china deploys fixed wing AEW from its carriers.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top