CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

The trick here was that they didn't say simultaneous launch and recovery is a major cause of the "60%", or even necessarily related to it at all. They said:



Which is technically true.

Though, there's also this part:

---

Also fyi, for anyone unaware, the Nimitz class ships had their JBD interfering with the safety line of the landing zone, meaning they also couldn't conduct simultaneous launch and recovery. This wasn't changed until the Reagan subclass.

View attachment 163391

I am more saying that mentioning simultaneous launch and recovery in the first place as if it is a routine standard, is not a great look.
(Considering they say "Both of the catapults are situated close to the middle-front section of the landing area, so either the J-15 or J-35 (China’s two carrier-based fighter jets) would roll over the catapults when they land, temporarily preventing them from being used for launch operations and thus affecting the takeoff efficiency of the fighter jets," I am also unsure if that is or isn't factored into their 60% number)

Given CV-18 is a smaller ship, conventionally powered, with one fewer catapult and one (or two) fewer elevator/s, with a bigger island, it definitely should go without saying that its sortie rate will be lower than a contemporary US CVN, which I think any observer would have baked in as assumptions to begin with.
The rest comes down to design choices/parameters, airwing configuration etc.

Whether it's 60% or a different number, is largely immaterial, but a higher effort article would have had the foresight to account for size, configuration, powerplant, to actually squeeze out benefits or compromises of "changeable" design choices.

 

[GiantPanda]

I don't think people understand how monumental the ability of the Fujian's EM cats to perform the launches of the J-15T, J-35 and KJ-600 is.

This is immensely hard stuff and China has basically aced it in its first test.

Meanwhile, Trump might make the US carrier fleet go back to steam!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[Blitzo]

I don't think people understand how monumental the ability of the Fujian's EM cats to perform the launches of the J-15T, J-35 and KJ-600 is.

This is immensely hard stuff and China has basically aced it in its first test.

Meanwhile, Trump might make the US carrier fleet go back to steam!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Trump is just saying things because he's Trump.

The EMALS itself is performing reasonably well on USS Ford -- after all it is operational in frontline service -- the reason why F-35C has yet to be launched from EMALS at sea is because the AAG on USS Ford has yet to be certified with F-35C. You can't launch an aircraft type from EMALS at sea if you can't recover an aircraft type on the carrier first.


Yes it is an achievement that they've been able to get EM cats on Fujian working for all the major aircraft types thus far, but don't cross wires with what Trump says versus the actual operational capability of the EM cats on Ford.

 

[HailingTX20]

Trump is just saying things because he's Trump.

The EMALS itself is performing reasonably well on USS Ford -- after all it is operational in frontline service -- the reason why F-35C has yet to be launched from EMALS at sea is because the AAG on USS Ford has yet to be certified with F-35C. You can't launch an aircraft type from EMALS at sea if you can't recover an aircraft type on the carrier first.


Yes it is an achievement that they've been able to get EM cats on Fujian working for all the major aircraft types thus far, but don't cross wires with what Trump says versus the actual operational capability of the EM cats on Ford.

I think it's important to be clear that nobody outside the program truly knows how EMALS is performing. The fact that it's operational doesn't necessarily mean all the underlying issues are resolved. Even if the core system is functioning as intended, the maintenance demands, cost and reliability concerns may still be problematic. When you factor in the AAG and AWE problems, it suggests that there may be deeper reliability concerns across the Ford’s electrical and electromagnetic systems.

Yes, Trump is Trump, but it's reasonable to assume he was briefed on aspects of these issues that aren't fully public.

That doesn't mean the PLAN won't face similar growing pains with its own systems. But I don't think it's wise to completely dismiss Trump's comments as typical Trumpisms.

 

[GiantPanda]

Trump is just saying things because he's Trump.

The EMALS itself is performing reasonably well on USS Ford -- after all it is operational in frontline service -- the reason why F-35C has yet to be launched from EMALS at sea is because the AAG on USS Ford has yet to be certified with F-35C. You can't launch an aircraft type from EMALS at sea if you can't recover an aircraft type on the carrier first.


Yes it is an achievement that they've been able to get EM cats on Fujian working for all the major aircraft types thus far, but don't cross wires with what Trump says versus the actual operational capability of the EM cats on Ford.

IMHO, I doubt Trump would say anything as extreme as returning to steam if there were no issues. This is not a leftist president wary of the military saying this. This is the leader of MAGA -- and all that implies for American greatness and exceptionalism -- saying this. Returning to steam
would have never even come across his mind if he hadn't been appraised of serious problems.

 

[Dante80]

I doubt Trump would say anything as extreme as returning to steam if there were no issues.

You would be surprised.

 

[Maikeru]

You would be surprised.

After all this is a guy who wanted to bring back battleships a few weeks ago.

 

[ENTED64]

Yeah I mean reading into this that there are actually problems with the American EMALs is just engaging in wishful thinking. This is Trump making the statement not some American military officer. We know who Trump is and how he operates. Best to just disregard this comment as just one of the many many bs comments from Trump and move on.

 

[dodgson]

The DC powered EMALS on the Fujian are quite different than the AC powered EMALS on the Ford Class carriers, so it is quite plausible the Americans are having a more difficult time integrating this new technology than the Chinese. The catapult failure rate on the Ford class is about 9x greater than what was expected (about 1 failure per 450+ launches instead of the contracted reliability rate of 1 failure per 4,150+ launches) There is only about a 70% chance the carrier makes it through a single day's flight operations without a failure.

And when a malfunction does occur, the Ford's design makes it difficult for maintenance crew to identify the exact point of failure and fix the broken components. Furthermore, the power system is interconnected such that all four catapults have to be shut down together in order to conduct maintenance on any single malfunctioning catapult (whereas the Fujian's catapults are wired in parallel and can be maintained individually without shutting down the other lines).

All told, these issues with the Ford EMALS are a big deal, but so is redesigning future ships to return to steam catapults. And of course EMALS offer load varying capabilities which steam catapults do not, so I doubt a return to steam actually happens. I'm sure the PLAN has its own technical challenges with their DC EMALS, but from what I've read so far, their system seems more efficient and more reliable than the American version, and that is a credit to their forward thinking.

 

[Blitzo]

The DC powered EMALS on the Fujian are quite different than the AC powered EMALS on the Ford Class carriers, so it is quite plausible the Americans are having a more difficult time integrating this new technology than the Chinese. The catapult failure rate on the Ford class is about 9x greater than what was expected (about 1 failure per 450+ launches instead of the contracted reliability rate of 1 failure per 4,150+ launches) There is only about a 70% chance the carrier makes it through a single day's flight operations without a failure.

And when a malfunction does occur, the Ford's design makes it difficult for maintenance crew to identify the exact point of failure and fix the broken components. Furthermore, the power system is interconnected such that all four catapults have to be shut down together in order to conduct maintenance on any single malfunctioning catapult (whereas the Fujian's catapults are wired in parallel and can be maintained individually without shutting down the other lines).

All told, these issues with the Ford EMALS are a big deal, but so is redesigning future ships to return to steam catapults. And of course EMALS offer load varying capabilities which steam catapults do not, so I doubt a return to steam actually happens. I'm sure the PLAN has its own technical challenges with their DC EMALS, but from what I've read so far, their system seems more efficient and more reliable than the American version, and that is a credit to their forward thinking.

"Quite plausible" is different to "we can confidently say".

At the end of the day, USS Ford is considered a fully operational frontline carrier for the USN, with the only caveat being that it is unable to onboard F-35Cs due to issues with AAG compatibility.

EMALS itself is quite capable of launching F-35Cs.

Taking all of that together, if we accept the premise that EMALS itself is:
1) capable of launching F-35Cs
2) launching the rest of the USN's carrier aircraft on USS Ford adequately in its role as a frontline carrier,

Then there is no reason to cast any particular doubts onto EMALS regardless of whatever off the cuff shooting of neurons that occurs in Trump's head which somehow manifests itself as a verbal remark.


I understand that people find talk about the USN's EMALS interesting and related to the progress of CV-18, so I hope this will actually clear up what is actually the basis for speculation about "issues with USN EMALS".
The reason the USN is unable to launch F-35Cs from USS Ford isn't an EMALS issue, it's an AAG issue.