CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[56860]

All governments especially superpowers in a cold war care about prestige.

Prestige means confidence from allies, and when there isn't any hot fighting, its all about posturing to discourage the other side from military adventurism. The other stuff you mention about say COVID or HSR is just about fulfilling the government's duty to provide for their popular base, not about international prestige.

As has been outlined many times, cutting edge weapons platforms largely make carriers obsolete. That will be true for Chinese supercarriers too once USA has developed similar capability.

I don't see China changing their whole doctrine to use CVs just like America. As for protecting trade routes, ofc China can get mileage out of CVs there too, but that's fairly low intensity.

If the CPC believes carriers to be obsolete in 2022, it would not be building one. The fact that 003 exists means the CPC does not believe this to be the case.

Of course China cares about face. So does every other government. But not to the extent that it would waste considerable resources on a 'largely obsolete' asset.

 

[Andy1974]

If the CPC believes carriers to be obsolete in 2022, it would not be building one. The fact that 003 exists means the CPC does not believe this to be the case.

Of course China cares about face. So does every other government. But not to the extent that it would waste considerable resources on a 'largely obsolete' asset.

PLA said the carrier will be used for far sea escort missions. Aircraft carriers are good for that role. It’s not the same as power projection, it’s not obsolete in this role.

 

[FairAndUnbiased]

I am exceptical about building more carriers. On one hand hipersonic antiship weapons are a very good deterrent of a modern CSG. But in the other the new series of CVNs are consuming a LOT of US Navy resources, too much in my oppinion.

Type 003 can give PLAN a CVW even a bit modern that one US Navy based on F35C can offer (at least when JC31 are operationally deployed), but... really PLANs wants to follow the trend of US Navy?, ...and at which cost?. Type 003 would also be an awesome SCS for powerful ASW fleets, but LHDs are IMO enough for that.

that's why I think that PLAN should build out regular CVs and LHDs for a lighter, more flexible force as the backbone of actual regional warfighting capability, then have a few CVNs solely for global power projection once there are enough CVs and LHDs for regional security. I posted a US Congress audit report that noted CVNs had 30% vs. 25% maintenance downtime, cost 58% more to operate, required 40% more labor, more specialized labor, and didn't do better than CVs during Desert Storm.

the CVs/LHDs should be focused on not just jet fighters but USVs/UUVs in the LHD well deck, drones, etc with jet fighters sprinkled in. The PLAN has a different mission from the USN and has much more options to work with. USVs, UUVs and drones are game changers.

 

[Helius]

How so? How could the catapult motor (linear motor) and the energy store have no switch in the first place? Any device that engage or disengage them is acting as a switch regardless the name. How would you even be able to trigger the launch if you can not engage the storage and the motor to the bus? If you can not disengage them you would keep them constantly connected and the motor would be fed with electricity all the time, then your motor will get stuck at the end of the launch rail and melt.

I don't know how you picture this in your mind, it seems that something big is missing. Anyway, it is too far out of topic, I will stop here.

The problem, at least from what I can discern, is congruent with what has already been discussed at length, that the individual catapults simply could not/cannot be electrically disconnected from the energy stores if one catapults fails while the other 3 remain engaged.

What I think you're talking about is energising the LIM for aircraft launching. But even when the catapult is at idle, the coils on the linear motor itself is most probably kept under constant current to maintain the magnetic gap between the primary and the secondary, which would explain why they can't isolate the motor as it would mean having to power down all 4 of the catapults, as they share the same energy source from those 3 energy storage groups.


Here's a DoD assessment done by the DOT&E (Director, Operational Test & Evaluation) on the EMALS and the deficiencies the Navy had found -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The reliability concerns are exacerbated by the fact that the crew cannot readily electrically isolate EMALS components during flight operations due to the shared nature of the Energy Storage Groups and Power Conversion Subsystem inverters onboard CVN 78. The process for electrically isolating equipment is time-consuming; spinning down the EMALS motor/generators takes 1.5 hours by itself. The inability to readily electrically isolate equipment precludes EMALS maintenance during flight operations, reducing the system’s operational availability.

At the current reliability, EMALS has a 7 percent chance of completing the 4-day surge and a 67 percent chance of completing a day of sustained operations as defined in the design reference mission. Absent a major redesign, EMALS is unlikely to support high-intensity operations expected in combat.

So I think @Intrepid could be on to something when it comes to the PLAN's possible solution to mitigating and avoiding the electrical problems the USN faces with their EMALS, by possibly making each catapult run on its own power source, which is less efficient, but fewer headaches.

 

[enroger]

The problem, at least from what I can discern, is congruent with what has already been discussed at length, that the individual catapults simply could not/cannot be electrically disconnected from the energy stores if one catapults fails while the other 3 remain engaged.

What I think you're talking about is energising the LIM for aircraft launching. But even when the catapult is at idle, the coils on the linear motor itself is most probably kept under constant current to maintain the magnetic gap between the primary and the secondary, which would explain why they can't isolate the motor as it would mean having to power down all 4 of the catapults, as they share the same energy source from those 3 energy storage groups.

Here's a DoD assessment done by the DOT&E (Director, Operational Test & Evaluation) on the EMALS and the deficiencies the Navy had found -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So I think @Intrepid could be onto something when it comes to the PLAN's possible solution to mitigating and avoiding the electrical problems the USN faces with their EMALS, by possibly making each catapult run on its own power source, which is less efficient, but much less headaches.

Interesting to note it takes 1.5hr to spin down EMAL motors in order to electrically isolate it, I'm assuming they meant spinning down flywheels? Can't imagine anything else taking that long.... if that is so it is very interesting, that they need to spin down flywheel because I'd think it is ok to let it keep spinning, as long as induction coils are not connected it should have no electrical influence...

Sorry for OT, probably should discuss it in other threads, this is very interesting stuff

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

I don't know if this has been answered previously or even known, but what does the Fujian use for energy storage? Flywheels or capacitors?

 

[Helius]

Interesting to note it takes 1.5hr to spin down EMAL motors in order to electrically isolate it, I'm assuming they meant spinning down flywheels? Can't imagine anything else taking that long.... if that is so it is very interesting, that they need to spin down flywheel because I'd think it is ok to let it keep spinning, as long as induction coils are not connected it should have no electrical influence...

Sorry for OT, probably should discuss it in other threads, this is very interesting stuff

Which is further complicated by the fact the EMALS at least circa 2016 were simply not reliable as they would fail at least once every 400 launches. That's 10 times worse than the required 4,000+ cycles between failure -

As of April 2016, the program estimates that EMALS has approximately 400 Mean Cycles Between Critical Failure (MCBCF) in the shipboard configuration, where a cycle represents the launch of one aircraft. While this estimate is above the rebaselined reliability growth curve, the rebaselined curve is well below the requirement of 4,166 MCBCF.

As to what the USN has done since then to address all of that, if at all, is sadly but understandably under-publicised. So it'd be really interesting to see what the PLAN has come up with for their EMALS when they finally get around to testing them on the boat.

 

[enroger]

I don't know if this has been answered previously or even known, but what does the Fujian use for energy storage? Flywheels or capacitors?

I've asked that exact question and people suggested capacitor, we probably won't have concrete confirmation (if someone manage to dig up some patents would be great) but I do believe it is in fact capacitor since it seems to be the general direction China is moving to, including railgun development. And there've been no mention or rumors' afaik about flywheels anywhere else, at least back when I can still access Chinese military forums

 

[taxiya]

The problem, at least from what I can discern, is congruent with what has already been discussed at length, that the individual catapults simply could not/cannot be electrically disconnected from the energy stores if one catapults fails while the other 3 remain engaged.

What I think you're talking about is energising the LIM for aircraft launching. But even when the catapult is at idle, the coils on the linear motor itself is most probably kept under constant current to maintain the magnetic gap between the primary and the secondary, which would explain why they can't isolate the motor as it would mean having to power down all 4 of the catapults, as they share the same energy source from those 3 energy storage groups.


Here's a DoD assessment done by the DOT&E (Director, Operational Test & Evaluation) on the EMALS and the deficiencies the Navy had found -

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

So I think @Intrepid could be on to something when it comes to the PLAN's possible solution to mitigating and avoiding the electrical problems the USN faces with their EMALS, by possibly making each catapult run on its own power source, which is less efficient, but fewer headaches.

Thanks for the link. There are certainly more things in the design than simply a switch. I think in my other post I suggested something in the same line as you said here. I will study the link further.

Maybe we can continue the discussion in the separate launcher thread.

 

[davidau]

Which is further complicated by the fact the EMALS at least circa 2016 were simply not reliable as they would fail at least once every 400 launches. That's 10 times worse than the required 4,000+ cycles between failure -



As to what the USN has done since then to address all of that, if at all, is sadly but understandably under-publicised. So it'd be really interesting to see what the PLAN has come up with for their EMALS when they finally get around to testing them on the boat.

The China version is DC, the US...AC, and the grouping of the three CATOBAR are different. I do believe China under Ma has studied the AC version which he rejected and came up with a more effecient and superior DC version.