PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

chuck731 said:

Yes, but steam can be stored at much higher energy density than electricity, so storing energy needed for charging up a steam catapult would take up much less room.

Click to expand...

But you can't control steam and as such a lot is wasted its inefficient compared to EMALS

You need to direct a lot of power to a particular point using steam has been the method of choice because to make steam is easy compared to electricity, as technology's move on so does systems now they can use EMALS so that's why steam is no longer considered a good opition

i wonder what kind of rcs discharge would be emitted from an EM catobar

chuck731 said:

Yes, but steam can be stored at much higher energy density than electricity, so storing energy needed for charging up a steam catapult would take up much less room.

Click to expand...

It's actually the other way around. From a on EMALS:

The introduction of EMALS would have an overall positive impact on the ship. The launch engine is capable of a high thrust density, as shown by the half scale model that demonstrated 1322 psi over its cross section. This is compared to the relatively low 450 psi of the steam catapult. The same is true with energy storage devices, which would be analogous to the steam catapult's steam accumulator. The low energy density of the steam accumulator would be replaced by high energy density flywheels. These flywheels provide energy densities of 28 KJ/KG. The increased densities would reduce the system's volume and would allow for more room for vital support equipment on the host platform.

Click to expand...

Additionally, transfer of steam requires large diameter piping that takes up a lot of space. Those piping along with the accumulators also require insulation, further taking up spaces.

any example of that kind of flywheel could be:

drunkmunky said:

any example of that kind of flywheel could be ...

Click to expand...

The CV-2 and CV-3 had flywheel catapults. One of the great defects of using it was a lengthy interval between launches. The flywheel cat on saratoga went unused and was removed when she was taken in hand for conversion to a night duty carrier in June 1944. She was given a pair of hydraulik cats instead.

An other story regarding "catapultability" of aircraft: in WW2 many US Army Air Force aircraft were being fitted for catapulting on the assembly line. That were all Mustang and Thunderbolt destined for the Pacific and even two-engine fighters like Lightnings and Black Widows. It is the bridle method you can easy adopt for a wide range of aircraft, because the hard points are near the centre of gravity and not somewhere on the bow.

The super-capacitor technology is making considerable progress so we might soon be taking leave of fly-wheels for the second time in aircraft carriers.

OT
But I see a great future for fly-wheels in two-wheeled electrical motor cars - keeping the vehicles upright and storing energy, especially valuable when cars will be provided with energy from antennae in the road as used in that passenger bus in South Korea. We would then be doing away with fuel stations within cities, saving ground surface and avoiding the pollution they cause and the accidents that sometimes occurs with them.
Those cars are bound to be lighter and cheaper than cars with batteries and they would not be troubled by long loading times for the batteries.

And don't forget the Lithium supply.

[video=youtube;_jGkBtkzzSA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jGkBtkzzSA[/video]

[video=youtube;MQJdib_BkZ4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQJdib_BkZ4[/video]

Franklin said:

As the only fighter capable of carrying air-to-surface missiles and bombs, the J-15 can be truly considered a multirole combat aircraft in striking against air, sea and ground targets. Since the F/A-18 Super Hornet will be produced as the main carried-based fighters of the US Navy until 2040, the J-15, also known as Flying Shark, will become its major challenge for at least the next 20 years.

This new type of fighter is likely to enter the PLA Navy by 2020 according to Xinhua. The J-15 will still be a tough opponent for the US Navy even after it acquires the F-35C in the future. The F-35C lacks the ability to attack large vessels like the Liaoning and other surface combat vessels of the PLA Navy, according to the report.

Click to expand...

1st, in the late 2020s, the F-35C will be equally numerous to the Super hornets on U.S. carriers in the strike/attack role..

2nd, the F-35C is designed for war at sea scenarios and will be perfectly capable of running ant-surface missions against any opposition vessel, including their carriers. The Joint Strike Missile is specifically for the F-35, which will be able to carry two in its weapons bays, along with up to 4 AMRAAMs. 2-4 more JSMs can be carried on pylons if necessary.

Specs for the JSM?

Range: 280 km
Warhead: 125 kg
Speed: High subsonic
Profile: Sea skimming, with random terminal maneuvering
Targeting: Infrared, GPS, Inertial Guidance, Terrain/Image recognition, capable of target discrimination
Communication: Two-way ship to weapon, weapon to ship, weapon to weapon. Retargeting, BDA, etc.

These will be very effective, network centric, or independent weapons.

Does anyone know if the Liaoning is at sea right now. We have seen some recent pictures of the J-15 on the Liaoning with weapons load.