PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

thunderchief said:

Your logic is : let's wait X more years until we have EMALS ready . Meanwhile, we should stick with ski-jump, use J-15 with fraction of their true capability and not develop and deploy whole new classes of aircraft like E-2 Hawkeye,C-2 Greyhound etc...

Click to expand...

Nope. What you have said here has absolutely no connection to the points I am raising.

My logic is, it is better to wait a bit which makes standardization of catapult technologies for multiple future carriers possible, rather than rush to deploy catapults for the sake of having catapults and end up with each carrier having non-transferable technologies.

thunderchief said:

What you do not understand is that time is money . Everything China fails to do today, China would have to do tomorrow . IF China wants to become global naval power it would have to go trough all the phases and all necessary steps . First catapult launch of PLAN aircraft is bound to happen . It is better then to do that as soon as possible, then to waste time (and money) waiting for this or that .

Click to expand...

What you do not understand is that rushing to have something for the sake of having that thing is not how PLAN thinks. Otherwise, China would have put in service mediocre carriers rather than waiting for everything to be readied before starting work on the Liaoning.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:

By that line of thinking, the fact that I work and live in a various buildings must make me a good architect or structural engineer.

Click to expand...

No, IMHO, that does not follow at all.

Someone like Kwaig did not just live on a carrier like it was an apartment. He worked on it 24x7 and had to be available to do jobs that dealt with the aircraft and their systems that maintained, launched, and flew them. In other words, he was working with the very systems we are discussing.

If you lived in an apartment building and worked there on the maintenance of the building structure as your full time job, that might be a closer analaogy...and if you did, you would be in a much better position to speak about those very subsystems as well.

Engineer said:

This sudden rush to have CATOBAR abilities with whatever technologies available just doesn't match how PLAN does things.

Click to expand...

It's not just "whatever technologies are available," it is a proven, reliable, and very workable technology that will successfully launch the aircraft the PLAN currently has, and those they they are planning for their carriers that they do not have yet. (IE, AEW, EW, ASW, etc.)

The PLAN will drive to get the critical CAPBAILITY a CATOBAR carrier offers so they can achieve their maritime goals. If the more advanced technology is available or almost available in the time frame they want CATOBAR, then they will use it. If not, they will use a perfectly acceptable and workable existingg technology in the mean time to get the true capability they are looking for...and then fold in the advanced tech later.

Steam Cats and EMALS cats are both tools...means to an end...and the end is launching fully capable and armed aircraft with as much full load as possible to be able to perform the power projection that the PRC desires. That's the goal and they will not put that goal off very long at all to simply get a little better tool to do it with. That's not to say it is not a good thing to get the new tool...it is. But better to have a CATOBAR capability that is 95% when you need it, then to have no CATOBAR capabilitiy in that regard while waiting for the 100%.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:

The issue isn't whether there is something wrong with steam catapults. The issue is whether it is worthwhile to lock an ultra expensive hull to steam catapults and cough up money for a dedicated logistical system for the next 50 years.

Prop fighters worked very well in the WWII, too. However, technologies that work well in the past does not mean they are equally good for the future.


First, if steam catapult is so good, then there would be no point in switching to EMALS on the Ford Class at all. The fact that Ford Class will feature EMALS highlights the weakness of your arguments.

Second, catapult isn't just a cylinder sitting within a trench on the deck, but a system which includes a network of piping and tanks within the ship. Once a carrier goes with steam catapults, swapping them out for EMALS will be like doing blood vessels transplant -- not something possible. So, if PLAN goes with steam catapults now, PLAN would be forced to use this technology for the next 50 years. Worse, PLAN would have to build dedicated logistical support around this one single hull, and that's bad, very very bad. This is the biggest problem of going with steam catapults.

Third, the Nimitz class are forced to use steam catapults until their retirement. There is no way around this. Luckily for the USN, there are enough of them to spread out the logistical cost. China will have no such luxury. So whether Nimitz class will stick with steam catapults has no relevance here.

Click to expand...

To purposely pick prop 'fighters' and compare it to steam catapults is not even close comparing apples to apples. Besides if you truly want to compare legacy technologies you should at least compare prop in general (as oppose to just fighters) to jet turbines in which case I think planes like C-130s, A400M, E2D Hawkeyes whose production line will continue for many decades more would like to have a word and that's not even counting the civilian market which has dozens more.

As for nitpicking 'old' tech still relevant today I can name dozens of legacy tech that is still used and produced today. the Colt 1911 comes to mind.. it is more than 100 yrs old and it is still being used and widely produced today in large numbers inspite of great advances made in firearms technologies.

Like you said Nimitz is 'forced' to use steam cat because that was part of the original design spec however as we have all speculated here Liaoning #2 and possibly #3 are ALSO based on an old design even if it's a new built even though it didn't have a catapult in the original design. EMALs and it's powerband requirements are still a relatively new technology in the US and certainly much newer to China. I just do not believe PLAN will put EMALS in their next carrier for the the reason I already stated in my previous post. They are possibly building Liaoning #2 NOW as we speak and even if they have not cut their first steel I am almost certain the design phase is all but finalized. I do however believe they will put EMALS in their INDIGENOUS carrier which me and many others here believe will be a full flat deck CV.

Just to summarized, I never said EMALS was bad not have I ever said steam cats are better than EMALS. All I'm saying is if you build a ship TODAY unless you are USN odds are you WON'T put EMALS on her!

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:

By that line of thinking, the fact that I work and live in a various buildings must make me a good architect or structural engineer.

Click to expand...

I have a new name for you.. Mr. Strawman

In all seriousness if you actually do "WORK" in and on different types of buildings etc then yes you are correct, you will have more credibility than someone who just works inside a building but then that someone who just works inside a building will have more knowledge about buildings in general than someone who spent all his life living in a jungle and slept on trees.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

OT - Believe me gentlemen it takes more than just "living and working" inside a building to become a good Architect or Structural Engineer. There are just too many elements and parts that needs to get done in order to put up a building from the ground up.

Now, I think what Engineering is trying to say is that since this will be China's first indigenous build carrier, why go through all the necessary previous technologies such as steam catapult just in order to understand enough of in order to build EMAL catapult system? Why not just go with the EMAL and work your program from there, regardless of the time it takes to mature? China doesn't need to spend decades and trillions of dollars just to have the same US Navy steam CATOBAR system level. That would be a huge waste of time and money for something that's NOT really that technically super hard to do IMO in compare to rocket science.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Equation said:

OT - Believe me gentlemen it takes more than just "living and working" inside a building to become a good Architect or Structural Engineer. There are just too many elements and parts that needs to get done in order to put up a building from the ground up.

Now, I think what Engineering is trying to say is that since this will be China's first indigenous build carrier, why go through all the necessary previous technologies such as steam catapult just in order to understand enough of in order to build EMAL catapult system? Why not just go with the EMAL and work your program from there, regardless of the time it takes to mature? China doesn't need to spend decades and trillions of dollars just to have the same US Navy steam CATOBAR system level. That would be a huge waste of time and money for something that's NOT really that technically super hard to do IMO in compare to rocket science.

Click to expand...

Because it's ultimately not about technology but capability. EMALS isn't so revolutionary that we're talking about massive differences in capability.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

latenlazy said:

Because it's ultimately not about technology but capability. EMALS isn't so revolutionary that we're talking about massive differences in capability.

Click to expand...

True, but than why replace the steam catapult with EMALS if they're not that much of a difference? Now if we're talking about crew maintenance and capability at sea...than there is a difference between the two systems. Human learning the system and with training can adapt with the EMAL system over the steam one, so that's no problem.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Equation said:

True, but than why replace the steam catapult with EMALS if they're not that much of a difference? Now if we're talking about crew maintenance and capability at sea...than there is a difference between the two systems. Human learning the system and with training can adapt with the EMAL system over the steam one, so that's no problem.

Click to expand...

More compact, lower impact on airframes , easier to maintain, more robust during combat etc. It's not that the technology isn't worth having. It's just that when it comes down to it the most fundamental parameter is can it get your plane into the sky at full load, and operating your carrier is primarily about that and not all the other nice things. Whether you have those benefits is about making your life easier. Whether you have the capability can make or break you. Engineer's argument is not unreasonable, but it's not the only reasonable argument.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Jeff Head said:

No, IMHO, that does not follow at all.

Someone like Kwaig did not just live on a carrier like it was an apartment. He worked on it 24x7 and had to be available to do jobs that dealt with the aircraft and their systems that maintained, launched, and flew them. In other words, he was working with the very systems we are discussing.

If you lived in an apartment building and worked there on the maintenance of the building structure as your full time job, that might be a closer analaogy...and if you did, you would be in a much better position to speak about those very subsystems as well.

Click to expand...

No. The argument follows perfectly. The rationale is that doing maintenance makes one a maintenance worker, not an engineer. While I don't dispute someone's claim of having worked on board a carrier, that's quite a different experience from working as senior manager on carrier design.

Jeff Head said:

It's not just "whatever technologies are available," it is a proven, reliable, and very workable technology that will successfully launch the aircraft the PLAN currently has, and those they they are planning for their carriers that they do not have yet. (IE, AEW, EW, ASW, etc.)

The PLAN will drive to get the critical CAPBAILITY a CATOBAR carrier offers so they can achieve their maritime goals. If the more advanced technology is available or almost available in the time frame they want CATOBAR, then they will use it. If not, they will use a perfectly acceptable and workable existingg technology in the mean time to get the true capability they are looking for...and then fold in the advanced tech later.

Click to expand...

If PLAN sources the catapults from US, then this argument about proven, reliable, and very workable technology would work. However,this isn't the case for China's steam catapult, assuming they did make one.

Jeff Head said:

Steam Cats and EMALS cats are both tools...means to an end...and the end is launching fully capable and armed aircraft with as much full load as possible to be able to perform the power projection that the PRC desires. That's the goal and they will not put that goal off very long at all to simply get a little better tool to do it with. That's not to say it is not a good thing to get the new tool...it is. But better to have a CATOBAR capability that is 95% when you need it, then to have no CATOBAR capabilitiy in that regard while waiting for the 100%.

Click to expand...

I do not agree obtaining CATOBAR capability is their only goal. It doesn't make sense, both logically and statistically, since carrier is such a complex piece of equipment there have to be other considerations.

Re: PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme..News & Views

Engineer said:

I do not agree obtaining CATOBAR capability is their only goal. It doesn't make sense, both logically and statistically, since carrier is such a complex piece of equipment there have to be other considerations.

Click to expand...

However, having the capability itself can weigh in the decision making more than every other factor, since the capability itself is ultimately the entire point.