PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.

noone536

noone536

Junior Member
hmm.

i think the real question here is not if china can leapfrog but is if they have this technology why wouldn't they implement this.

their being couple of article about china magnetic launch system. ( i think it says the guy who worked on it won some kind of national award for it)

but we have also heard that this technology will not be implemented on the indigenous carrier.

is it cause china want to play it safe?

this will be quite weird cause if the media is praising the technology it shows to me that the government shows some kind of confidence on the technology.

the only other reason could be cost or complication with implementation. ( just because you have the technology does not mean you know how to use it well.

also with the issue of willingness to leapfrogging,

china has a record of willing to make the jump. ( i think the best example would be implementing bullbup design on the assault rifle, i know the technology is being around but for a country as large as china it was a big deal. also it was a decent new technology with i think the famas the only other large scale bullbup user)

p.s. i know i am using the term leapfroog wrong but what i mean is new technology.
 
Last edited:
PiSigma

PiSigma

"the engineer"
I would call using the bullup design is regressing and not leapfrogging
Also having a technology is not the same as mastering one. So like you said they are probably being conservative. But we don't know for sure what they will go with yet.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
noone536 said:
hmm.

i think the real question here is not if china can leapfrog but is if they have this technology why wouldn't they implement this.

their being couple of article about china magnetic launch system. ( i think it says the guy who worked on it won some kind of national award for it)

but we have also heard that this technology will not be implemented on the indigenous carrier.

is it cause china want to play it safe?

this will be quite weird cause if the media is praising the technology it shows to me that the government shows some kind of confidence on the technology.

the only other reason could be cost or complication with implementation. ( just because you have the technology does not mean you know how to use it well.

also with the issue of willingness to leapfrogging,

china has a record of willing to make the jump. ( i think the best example would be implementing bullbup design on the assault rifle, i know the technology is being around but for a country as large as china it was a big deal. also it was a decent new technology with i think the famas the only other large scale bullbup user)

p.s. i know i am using the term leapfroog wrong but what i mean is new technology.
Click to expand...

It could be that the Steam power faction has stronger lobby in the government
Don't forget this people has been hard at work for 30 years since early 80's. If the navy choose EM their work is wasted

It was rumored that they have the ear of then Defence minister Guo Boxiong and he nixed the EM catapult
But since he is now convicted of corruption the competition is reopen. The fact that they built functional training center with both system show that EM is not dead!

The other consideration is power .EM catapult use a lot of power It best used in combination with IEPS China has had IEPS system for at least 3 years But has not implement it in the Navy ships I believe they did implement it in Navy tugboat
China has working 90 MW Gas turbine that can easily be converted into Maritime application

So it is not as easy implementing EM catapult you have to consider the whole system that work with it
Steam catapult is maybe the more mature system as the steam power plant that drive the propeller can generate high pressure steam at the same time It is therefore more compatible

I have no doubt that the AAG and EM catapult work but not sure if China has the mature system to support those AAG and EM
Maybe after they have experience with IEPS with the upcoming frigate design they will be more comfortable
 
Last edited:
T

taxiya

Brigadier
Registered Member
noone536 said:
hmm.

i think the real question here is not if china can leapfrog but is if they have this technology why wouldn't they implement this.

their being couple of article about china magnetic launch system. ( i think it says the guy who worked on it won some kind of national award for it)

but we have also heard that this technology will not be implemented on the indigenous carrier.

is it cause china want to play it safe?

this will be quite weird cause if the media is praising the technology it shows to me that the government shows some kind of confidence on the technology.

the only other reason could be cost or complication with implementation. ( just because you have the technology does not mean you know how to use it well.

also with the issue of willingness to leapfrogging,

china has a record of willing to make the jump. ( i think the best example would be implementing bullbup design on the assault rifle, i know the technology is being around but for a country as large as china it was a big deal. also it was a decent new technology with i think the famas the only other large scale bullbup user)

p.s. i know i am using the term leapfroog wrong but what i mean is new technology.
Click to expand...

We have not seen China implementing ANY type of catapult yet. We have not seen any piece of flat top carrier being built yet. So for the moment, we can not say they would not implement.

We heard lots of things, but who said those things?

It is too early to say anything.
 
D

delft

Brigadier
Hendrik_2000 said:
It could be that the Steam power faction has stronger lobby in the government
Don't forget this people has been hard at work for 30 years since early 80's. If the navy choose EM their work is wasted

It was rumored that they have the ear of then Defence minister Guo Boxiong and he nixed the EM catapult
But since he is now convicted of corruption the competition is reopen. The fact that they built functional training center with both system show that EM is not dead!

The other consideration is power .EM catapult use a lot of power It best used in combination with IEPS China has had IEPS system for at least 3 years But has not implement it in the Navy ships I believe they did implement it in Navy tugboat
China has working 90 MW Gas turbine that can easily be converted into Maritime application

So it is not as easy implementing EM catapult you have to consider the whole system that work with it
Steam catapult is maybe the more mature system as the steam power plant that drive the propeller can generate high pressure steam at the same time It is therefore more compatible

I have no doubt that the AAG and EM catapult work but not sure if China has the mature system to support those AAG and EM
Maybe after they have experience with IEPS with the upcoming frigate design they will be more comfortable
Click to expand...
The fact that France choose to use a US cat on CdG after using cats for many years on Foch and Clemenceau suggest that steam cats aren't really a simple technology. China is new to both steam and EM cats, EM cats are more efficient than steam cats ( but they might demand one or two steam turbine/generator sets of their own - make space for that in the engine rooms ) and steam would become an odd choice in a GT powered flattop, suggest that EM is the more logical choice.
 
Hendrik_2000

Hendrik_2000

Lieutenant General
delft said:
The fact that France choose to use a US cat on CdG after using cats for many years on Foch and Clemenceau suggest that steam cats aren't really a simple technology. China is new to both steam and EM cats, EM cats are more efficient than steam cats ( but they might demand one or two steam turbine/generator sets of their own - make space for that in the engine rooms ) and steam would become an odd choice in a GT powered flattop, suggest that EM is the more logical choice.
Click to expand...

Right China never operate catapult that is why it is more risky having EM cat. Having 2 unproven technology simultaneously Catobar and EM
Remember that space is premium in every ship having another extra steam turbine and it associated equipment take a lot of space
The French go for the american system because she doesn't want to spend unnecessarily on researching and debugging steam cat when she can just license But China has no choice

China has been experimenting, testing and improving the steam cat for at least 30 years. And She has highly developed power plant industry including boiler, steam generator and control equipment. So she has very extensive experience in steam plant. The same cannot be said of IEPS She hasn't even built a single warship with IEPS How about the industry are they ready?
EM cat work well with IEPS and gas turbine like E2 carrier that UK is building

I don't know what efficiency you are talking about because Steam power plant efficiency is between 37% to 44% for say 80MW The same efficiency as Gas Turbine of that size
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top