PLAN Catapult Development Thread, News, etc.

[Hendrik_2000]

Related to the subject From SCMP

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Can China leapfrog the US in the scramble for the world’s best aircraft carrier?

China’s jet launch system for next carrier ‘better than US design’, top military engineer claims
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 15 March, 2017, 11:40pm
UPDATED : Thursday, 16 March, 2017, 10:59am

Comments: 24

China’s systems to launch and catch carrier-based aircraft are more advanced than those designed for the new generation of US supercarriers, according to a Chinese expert in the technology.

Rear Admiral Ma Weiming, a top engineer working on the project, said on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress on Monday that China had made breakthroughs in its advanced arresting gear (AAG) system designed to retrieve aircraft at sea, while the US had stumbled.

“The Gerald Ford cancelled its AAG and reverted to its original [arresting wire] system. We have no such problem,” he said, referring to the US’ new class of aircraft carrier.

He also said China’s electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) was more advanced than comparable US technology.

Chinese state media calls for tighter national security after detailed photos of PLA’s second aircraft carrier appear in Japanese media

“We have long overcome [all technical difficulties in EMALS]. I have already moved on from this [area of research and development],” he said.

Saying he was just a scientific researcher, Ma declined to say when his advanced technologies would be installed on China’s homegrown carriers.

Ma’s remarks come as China moves ahead with its carrier construction programme. Its first domestically built aircraft carrier, the Type 001A, is nearing completion and is expected to be launched in the first half of this year.

Construction of the second one, Type 002, is also under way.

No advanced jet launch system for China’s third aircraft carrier, experts say

An earlier report by the South China Morning Postsaid China would not adopt the highly advanced EMALS technology on the Type 002 but instead rely on a conventional system.

Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie said Ma had made “a certain advances” in AAG technology, compared with the US.

Macau-based military observer Antony Wong Dong said the US AAG engineers had underestimated the difficulty of developing the technology and China may have been able to take note of this to make progress.

“Ma’s team .... may have learned lessons from their US counterparts, and made some breakthrough on AAG development,” Wong said.

 

[PiSigma]

Related to the subject From SCMP

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Can China leapfrog the US in the scramble for the world’s best aircraft carrier?

China’s jet launch system for next carrier ‘better than US design’, top military engineer claims
PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 15 March, 2017, 11:40pm
UPDATED : Thursday, 16 March, 2017, 10:59am

Comments: 24

China’s systems to launch and catch carrier-based aircraft are more advanced than those designed for the new generation of US supercarriers, according to a Chinese expert in the technology.

Rear Admiral Ma Weiming, a top engineer working on the project, said on the sidelines of the National People’s Congress on Monday that China had made breakthroughs in its advanced arresting gear (AAG) system designed to retrieve aircraft at sea, while the US had stumbled.

“The Gerald Ford cancelled its AAG and reverted to its original [arresting wire] system. We have no such problem,” he said, referring to the US’ new class of aircraft carrier.

He also said China’s electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) was more advanced than comparable US technology.

Chinese state media calls for tighter national security after detailed photos of PLA’s second aircraft carrier appear in Japanese media

“We have long overcome [all technical difficulties in EMALS]. I have already moved on from this [area of research and development],” he said.

Saying he was just a scientific researcher, Ma declined to say when his advanced technologies would be installed on China’s homegrown carriers.

Ma’s remarks come as China moves ahead with its carrier construction programme. Its first domestically built aircraft carrier, the Type 001A, is nearing completion and is expected to be launched in the first half of this year.

Construction of the second one, Type 002, is also under way.

No advanced jet launch system for China’s third aircraft carrier, experts say

An earlier report by the South China Morning Postsaid China would not adopt the highly advanced EMALS technology on the Type 002 but instead rely on a conventional system.

Beijing-based naval expert Li Jie said Ma had made “a certain advances” in AAG technology, compared with the US.

Macau-based military observer Antony Wong Dong said the US AAG engineers had underestimated the difficulty of developing the technology and China may have been able to take note of this to make progress.

“Ma’s team .... may have learned lessons from their US counterparts, and made some breakthrough on AAG development,” Wong said.

I'll believe it when I see it. Leapfrogging technology is not as easy as it sounds. Especially when China have a lot less experience working with carriers. If US found their AAG doesn't work due to conflict with essential carrier operations and thus decides to not go with. That is experience China just don't have and won't realize until they have more experience under their belt. But it could also be other reasons, who knows.

Also unless China knows EVERYTHING about the US system, which is impossible, how do they know they have a more advanced system? This is pretty typical scmp writing, crappy.

 

[taxiya]

I'll believe it when I see it. Leapfrogging technology is not as easy as it sounds. Especially when China have a lot less experience working with carriers. If US found their AAG doesn't work due to conflict with essential carrier operations and thus decides to not go with. That is experience China just don't have and won't realize until they have more experience under their belt. But it could also be other reasons, who knows.

Also unless China knows EVERYTHING about the US system, which is impossible, how do they know they have a more advanced system? This is pretty typical scmp writing, crappy.

I agree with you that sources as scmp are not reliable.

However you seems to take the attitude that "If A does not know, C can not know. C can only make the right choice after A has made hers first". This is far from logical and reality.

You don't need to be working with something like developing catapult to know it. Just reflect your school time, compare yourself and other students in the lab. Every team is given the same goal with the freedom of choice of approach and methods. Nobody is allowed to share the thinking. Should everyone choose the same approach? Certainly not. Will all approaches succeed in the goal? Certainly not. Will all approaches cost the same length of time? Certainly not. Will the team who started implementation first (team USN) certainly choose the right or best approach in terms of time and cost? Certainly not guaranteed. Will the second-to-start team (team PLAN) surely leg far behind? Not necessarily.

If you have spend years in University and decades in research institution and industry, you will have to agree with the uncertainties mentioned above. And very often, a surprise is not surprising at all.

Everyone make different choices or deductions based on different information gathered from different channels. That is not surprising at all. But maintaining in-scientific and illogical methodology will lead one nowhere.

 

[taxiya]

I'll believe it when I see it. Leapfrogging technology is not as easy as it sounds. Especially when China have a lot less experience working with carriers. If US found their AAG doesn't work due to conflict with essential carrier operations and thus decides to not go with. That is experience China just don't have and won't realize until they have more experience under their belt. But it could also be other reasons, who knows.

Also unless China knows EVERYTHING about the US system, which is impossible, how do they know they have a more advanced system? This is pretty typical scmp writing, crappy.

Leapfrogging is not easy at all. But it has happened numerous times in human history. In a broader sense, it is easy because it happens often.

Leapfrogging is not skipping some foundational techs, it is skipping some currently advanced but soon to be obsolete techs, it is a new player in the field choose a new tech where everyone is at the same start point and skip the well established tech avoiding the disadvantage competition. Some examples of leapfrogging:

South Korean bet on LCD over CRT and Plasma and defeated well established Japanese companies in the 1990s and onwards.

Japan bet on semiconductors over vacuum tubes for home electronics and defeated European and US companies who where ahead of Japan in every aspects in the 1950s.

Apple bet on hard drive and solid state media players (essentially computer based) over tape, CD based ones that Japanese company preferred in the 2000s.

Around beginning of 1900s, Germany (internal combustion) engines beat the British (steam piston) engines.

We can look further back in time and we will find more of these examples.

 

[Blitzo]

I'll believe it when I see it. Leapfrogging technology is not as easy as it sounds. Especially when China have a lot less experience working with carriers. If US found their AAG doesn't work due to conflict with essential carrier operations and thus decides to not go with. That is experience China just don't have and won't realize until they have more experience under their belt. But it could also be other reasons, who knows.

Also unless China knows EVERYTHING about the US system, which is impossible, how do they know they have a more advanced system? This is pretty typical scmp writing, crappy.

I agree that scmp is often not a good source for the latest Chinese military developments, but in this article (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), the sentences where SCMP cite Ma Weiming are actually quite legitimate and the parts where they quote Rear Admiral Ma are actually from an interview he did with a Chinese media outlet, so I would take it quite seriously.


Catapult and arresting gear aside...
Another big part of the interview is Rear Admiral Ma seemingly strongly suggesting that Chinese IEPS is using MVDC rather than the older MVAC used by the USN and which he says the USN are in preliminary stages of developing MVDC, and he seems to suggest it is another example of "leap frogging" where MVAC was not pursued and instead went directly to MVDC instead.

 

[taxiya]

I agree that scmp is often not a good source for the latest Chinese military developments, but in this article (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), the sentences where SCMP cite Ma Weiming are actually quite legitimate and the parts where they quote Rear Admiral Ma are actually from an interview he did with a Chinese media outlet, so I would take it quite seriously.


Catapult and arresting gear aside...
Another big part of the interview is Rear Admiral Ma seemingly strongly suggesting that Chinese IEPS is using MVDC rather than the older MVAC used by the USN and which he says the USN are in preliminary stages of developing MVDC, and he seems to suggest it is another example of "leap frogging" where MVAC was not pursued and instead went directly to MVDC instead.

another excellent Indeed.

 

[taxiya]

I'll believe it when I see it. Leapfrogging technology is not as easy as it sounds. Especially when China have a lot less experience working with carriers. If US found their AAG doesn't work due to conflict with essential carrier operations and thus decides to not go with. That is experience China just don't have and won't realize until they have more experience under their belt. But it could also be other reasons, who knows.

Also unless China knows EVERYTHING about the US system, which is impossible, how do they know they have a more advanced system? This is pretty typical scmp writing, crappy.

Last quote of you. Please don't take it as I am against you personally. It is the logic employed here I really must say something regardless the subjects.

One don't need to know EVERYTHING to know the overall performance or capability of a design or implementation, just SOMETHING is enough. For example, I am not a mechanical engineer, but I know petrol engine is better in bursty work than a diesel engine without knowing how the formula of compression/heating, moment of ignition etc.

In case of EMALS, the open information of the American approach will be enough for a people in the same field to know.

 

[PiSigma]

What many of you guys describe is actually developing parallel technologies and not actually advancing beyond the same technology. I don't have time to read the other article so I apologize if i have a generalised reply.
When I say leapfrog I meant following the same tech and moving past the same it. I didn't know China was pursuing a different tech. Which I consider as a parallel technology, they might reach a similar conclusion but obviously not the same way.
I have been around in industry for a long time so I have a pretty good idea how research development go, especially highly proprietary technology. Even if you have an idea what your competitors is doing in the same technology tree there are thousands of variables that could be different that you just won't know. I have worked on pilot projects that have drastically different results with just minor tweaks to the process. So my statement still stands, unless China knows everything about what the US is doing, they just don't know how ahead or if they are ahead. With parallel technologies I think it becomes even harder to compare.
When I said operations experience it is not just the new tech but the overall big picture. Since China has only operated a carrier for a few years they might have not seen some of the problems the US have seen. Therefore they might consider all the problems the US will consider. I'm not saying there is something wrong with the tech, but sometimes experience does matter some times.
Just ask Popeye the difference between an old salt to a new sailor, even if the new sailor got new training with new tech. That old salt gets respect because you can't replace experience.

 

[taxiya]

What many of you guys describe is actually developing parallel technologies and not actually advancing beyond the same technology. I don't have time to read the other article so I apologize if i have a generalised reply.
When I say leapfrog I meant following the same tech and moving past the same it. I didn't know China was pursuing a different tech. Which I consider as a parallel technology, they might reach a similar conclusion but obviously not the same way.
I have been around in industry for a long time so I have a pretty good idea how research development go, especially highly proprietary technology. Even if you have an idea what your competitors is doing in the same technology tree there are thousands of variables that could be different that you just won't know. I have worked on pilot projects that have drastically different results with just minor tweaks to the process. So my statement still stands, unless China knows everything about what the US is doing, they just don't know how ahead or if they are ahead. With parallel technologies I think it becomes even harder to compare.
When I said operations experience it is not just the new tech but the overall big picture. Since China has only operated a carrier for a few years they might have not seen some of the problems the US have seen. Therefore they might consider all the problems the US will consider. I'm not saying there is something wrong with the tech, but sometimes experience does matter some times.
Just ask Popeye the difference between an old salt to a new sailor, even if the new sailor got new training with new tech. That old salt gets respect because you can't replace experience.

First of all, no need to apologize for holding a different opinion as we are all here to understand and learn.

If I may represent others and if I understand your correctly, we actually agree to the definition of leapfrogging. Leapfrogging is to pursue the tech that is realistically possible to implement today which represent the future and skip the tech that is currently fully developped by front runners.

The new tech is more advanced than the current developped one. So it is not parallel tech. It is not two pathes of tech in the same generation.

Take again my examples, LCD was more advanced new tech compared to CRT in the early 1990s. Go fully commited to LCD by South Koreans and skip catching ut to Japan for CRT was a leapfrogging, not parellel. The same goes with semiconductor TV vs. vacum tube TV in the 1960s. In catapult case, EMALS is more advanced than steam, skipping steam is leapfrogging by China. A combo energy storage device is more advanced than flywheel, already do so (in demonstration stage perhaps) by Ma Weiming's team is leapfrogging if PLAN skip flywheel (not necessarily the first EMALS on AC, but in railgun application).

What you and the rest disagreed is that whether fully grasping the current tech is a must to go for the new tech. This is not true as again in my examples, LCD fabrication is largely not related to CRT, nor semiconductor to vacum tube. Due to that standpoint of yours (it is a must) you believe leapfrogging is difficult, while others believe it is rather easy and common in history.

 

[PiSigma]

First of all, no need to apologize for holding a different opinion as we are all here to understand and learn.

If I may represent others and if I understand your correctly, we actually agree to the definition of leapfrogging. Leapfrogging is to pursue the tech that is realistically possible to implement today which represent the future and skip the tech that is currently fully developped by front runners.

The new tech is more advanced than the current developped one. So it is not parallel tech. It is not two pathes of tech in the same generation.

Take again my examples, LCD was more advanced new tech compared to CRT in the early 1990s. Go fully commited to LCD by South Koreans and skip catching ut to Japan for CRT was a leapfrogging, not parellel. The same goes with semiconductor TV vs. vacum tube TV in the 1960s. In catapult case, EMALS is more advanced than steam, skipping steam is leapfrogging by China. A combo energy storage device is more advanced than flywheel, already do so (in demonstration stage perhaps) by Ma Weiming's team is leapfrogging if PLAN skip flywheel (not necessarily the first EMALS on AC, but in railgun application).

What you and the rest disagreed is that whether fully grasping the current tech is a must to go for the new tech. This is not true as again in my examples, LCD fabrication is largely not related to CRT, nor semiconductor to vacum tube. Due to that standpoint of yours (it is a must) you believe leapfrogging is difficult, while others believe it is rather easy and common in history.

I pretty much agree with what you wrote.
Going full EMALS before steam is leapfrogging. But I don't think leapfrogging is common in history because most of the time technology development is independent. It is only in the last hundred years or so that people have an idea what others are researching. In the case of TV types think of it as developing LCD or Plasma or LED, they are parallel technologies and different people have different preferences.