There's been a lot of exhaustive discussion over the years about why that wouldn't work.
Simply put, to answer your question, no it won't work and there are better alternatives compared to rigging a catapult with a ski jump.
Ask anything Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
There's been a lot of exhaustive discussion over the years about why that wouldn't work.
Simply put, to answer your question, no it won't work and there are better alternatives compared to rigging a catapult with a ski jump.
Ski jump requires that your aircraft's front wheel hit the curve of the ski ramp below a certain speed limit to avoid damage, a speed that could be achieved by the aircraft's own power. Using the cat for the run up to the ramp would not save much length.
You build the cat into the ski ramp, not in front of it. It can only be done with EM cats.
Maybe one hide other a CATOBAR possible ?
all small talk gentlemen, ain't gonna be no cat in the Ramp! NOT gonna happen, they will build this second boat with a ramp, (thanks to you Master Delft), I am sold on flying the J-15s off the ramp. "Look Ma, no hands", yes the Russians and the Chinese make it look easy, no you're not going to have the sortie generation you will with a CAT, but they don't really care at this stage.
and when the CAT comes along, I give it an 85% chance of being a steam cat, its just more practical, and it will completely eliminate the need for a ramp! but then I am the Air Force Brat??? so I could miss this whole point, but I would still bet MY last Benjamin Franklin on this and take your Benjamins away LOL.
This question and suggestion has been much discussed in the past and has been thoroughly shown to be impracticable, for numerous reasons.
I am moving this post and the response to the "Aak Anything Thread."
In4ser
Junior Member
Question: Why are Chinese naval ships like the 052D (beam: 18m) typically narrower when compared to their USN counterparts like the DDG-51 (beam: 20m)? Is there any doctrinal reason or is it purely technical?
Based upon my I understanding, that a more narrow ship is faster than a wider body ship. However, would appear to be more efficient to have wider body ship because it offers greater capacity and stability, while sacrificing little. Speed is not so important when a CSG is dependent on the slowest ship in group vs. individual capacity.
Am I correct to assume that because the 052D was based upon the the old 052 frame because the shipbuilders never got around to design a new frame. Therefore the ship design is not optimized for carrier escort because it was conceived prior to PLAN's design to build carrier? If so, is the 055 much wider than the 052? It appears to be similar it is length to beam ratio as the 052.
Or is it because the PLAN's diesel turbine engines are slower than USN's gas turbine engines and were design to account for the deficit in speed?
Thanks!
Based upon my I understanding, that a more narrow ship is faster than a wider body ship. However, would appear to be more efficient to have wider body ship because it offers greater capacity and stability, while sacrificing little. Speed is not so important when a CSG is dependent on the slowest ship in group vs. individual capacity.
Am I correct to assume that because the 052D was based upon the the old 052 frame because the shipbuilders never got around to design a new frame. Therefore the ship design is not optimized for carrier escort because it was conceived prior to PLAN's design to build carrier? If so, is the 055 much wider than the 052? It appears to be similar it is length to beam ratio as the 052.
Or is it because the PLAN's diesel turbine engines are slower than USN's gas turbine engines and were design to account for the deficit in speed?
Thanks!
Last edited:
GreenestGDP
Junior Member
Jeff or other Mods,
Please advise me on -- which thread is the most appropriate to post this kind of CV-17 * 001A news below ?
===
There was a Taiwan TV program that broadcast a segment about the development of PLAN CV-17 * 001A in Dalian and its possibility and pro and cons of using EMCAT now not later, ... ...
1) Why there is no need to use Steam CAT because using Steam CAT first will NOT improve the PLA EMCAT tech development.
2) Steam CAT waste tons of space and weight and difficult to maintain
in terms of leakage, and the Total Ownership cost is way much more.
Using EMCAT, CV-17 can carry 10% more aircraft than Steam CAT.
3) PLAN has a Designated National Treasure ( Think Without the Box ) Scientist ( Mr. MA Wei Ming ) who is the Chief Designer of EMCAT and Superconducting Devices for PLAN, and his team has all the components tech ready to install Variable Speed EMCAT using Superconducting Capacitor as the power supply on CV-17 * 001A.
Further, there is no need to use Flywheel as the medium to store the Electrical charge.
4) It also shown their projection on CV-17 * 001A size.
CV-16 * 001 -- Size = L * W = ( 304.5 * 75 ) meters
CV-17 * 001A -- Size = L * W = ( 350 * 86 ) meters
NOTE:
I wish PLA find another ( Think Without the Box ) Scientist such as ( Mr. MA Wei Ming ) within PLA Scientific community, and give him or her the task of Chief Designer of Turbofan Aircraft Engines overseeing all aspect of Turbofan Aircraft Engines R&D. Because simply pouring more money is not the wise answer.
IMHO, ... ...
Assigning a group of ( Think Without the Box ) Scientists to such core critical project is the key for engine breakthrough in PLA.
NOTE_2:
The PRC TV shows below may use non PLA pictures & videos as illustrations in explaining the EMCAT concept. Because in order to prevent being invited for Tea with PLA, the PRC TV shows use outside China sources such as from US on PLA R&D pictures & videos.
What so funny is all those PLA R&D pictures & videos are originally coming from PRC Military forums.
Source_1:
Source_2:
Source_3:
Please advise me on -- which thread is the most appropriate to post this kind of CV-17 * 001A news below ?
===
There was a Taiwan TV program that broadcast a segment about the development of PLAN CV-17 * 001A in Dalian and its possibility and pro and cons of using EMCAT now not later, ... ...
1) Why there is no need to use Steam CAT because using Steam CAT first will NOT improve the PLA EMCAT tech development.
2) Steam CAT waste tons of space and weight and difficult to maintain
in terms of leakage, and the Total Ownership cost is way much more.
Using EMCAT, CV-17 can carry 10% more aircraft than Steam CAT.
3) PLAN has a Designated National Treasure ( Think Without the Box ) Scientist ( Mr. MA Wei Ming ) who is the Chief Designer of EMCAT and Superconducting Devices for PLAN, and his team has all the components tech ready to install Variable Speed EMCAT using Superconducting Capacitor as the power supply on CV-17 * 001A.
Further, there is no need to use Flywheel as the medium to store the Electrical charge.
4) It also shown their projection on CV-17 * 001A size.
CV-16 * 001 -- Size = L * W = ( 304.5 * 75 ) meters
CV-17 * 001A -- Size = L * W = ( 350 * 86 ) meters
NOTE:
I wish PLA find another ( Think Without the Box ) Scientist such as ( Mr. MA Wei Ming ) within PLA Scientific community, and give him or her the task of Chief Designer of Turbofan Aircraft Engines overseeing all aspect of Turbofan Aircraft Engines R&D. Because simply pouring more money is not the wise answer.
IMHO, ... ...
Assigning a group of ( Think Without the Box ) Scientists to such core critical project is the key for engine breakthrough in PLA.
NOTE_2:
The PRC TV shows below may use non PLA pictures & videos as illustrations in explaining the EMCAT concept. Because in order to prevent being invited for Tea with PLA, the PRC TV shows use outside China sources such as from US on PLA R&D pictures & videos.
What so funny is all those PLA R&D pictures & videos are originally coming from PRC Military forums.
Source_1:
Source_2:
Source_3:
As any technical object a ship is a mass of compromises. Important, among many things, is the speed to be achieved and the weight of weapons, equipment and crew. The power necessary, and the weight of the propulsion machinery and fuel, is greatly dependent on the wave drag which for a given speed is greatly dependent on the length of the ship ( see Number of Froude ). So you want to make your ship long, but that would make the weight of the hull larger. Then the shape and the distribution of weights leads to the movement of the ship in a sea way, in a storm and, especially for Russian ships, in ice.
You design your ship for the type of sea, climate, price of fuel, type of crew your navy wants and a lot of other matters. But length and weight are pretty basic.
I would be careful about some of the conjecture coming our of Taiwan.
The PRC itself has announced that 001A will be a Ski-Jump carrier like the Liaoning. I expect it is going to be very close in size and function.
002 may have cats...and a discussion about whether those cats are steam or electromagnetic may be worthwhile..
But the decision on 001A has already been made and the PRC announced it as a ski-jump carrier.
I'd just let that discussion drop if I were you. But, if folks want to discuss it, here in the Ask Anything Thread is the best place for it.
Last edited: