CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Jura The idiot]

... Link 16 is 238 KB/sec; ...

this hasn't occurred to me ... I even used google to verify, found it's actually "peak" rate
(p. 10 out of 49 in the PDF:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)
I recently picked about $10/month wifi for the apartment because I thought it would be slow and I wouldn't hang much, I was wrong LOL

(I clipped this out so that you don't see my IP address

 

[Iron Man]

this hasn't occurred to me ... I even used google to verify, found it's actually "peak" rate
(p. 10 out of 49 in the PDF:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

Your link seems to be talking about a "LET" upgrade to Link 16 which the US military does not use due to its hardware and software not being able to cope with the higher data rate made possible by LET:

LET, otherwise, does not alter the Link-16 waveform. This was done so as not to alter the spectral content and so avoid National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) certification issues. It uses the same time refinement pulses, encryption, frequency selection algorithm, timeslot burst length, and transmitted pulse structure as current Link-16 terminals.

Note that the increased data rates of LET affect the achievable range of transmission. For example at 1 Mbps, a range of 185 km is possible. Also, there are implementation issues when using these increased data rates. The problem is that the US government specified hardware and software that must be used in the core of the Link-16 terminals cannot cope with the higher data throughput made possible by LET. The 1553 bus also has transfer rate limitations that adversely affect the maximum achievable performance.

 

[Jura The idiot]

Your link seems to be talking about ...

... whatever (I noticed it's 2004 link but it was the first document, I mean on top of my google search, with "238" inside), the point has been Link 16 is much slower than what would've been my guess

 

[delft]

Because of the development of low observable aircraft China is developing the Divine Eagle twin fuselage UAV enabling the use of much larger radar antennae and longer wave lengths. No similar aircraft will ever fit on a flattop but an AEW/C aircraft with antennae much larger than used by E-2D might be considered necessary. That suggest an aircraft of a different configuration than tested by the Y-7 experiment. That configuration might by now have been chosen and design will then be under way but the rumours haven't yet appeared. For the time being the use of aircraft carriers far from China is years away and support by Divine Eagle will be the way to go as long as they are still only defending China.

 

[Intrepid]

For the time being the use of aircraft carriers far from China is years away and support by Divine Eagle will be the way to go as long as they are still only defending China.

For the defense of China you do not need aircraft carriers.

 

[Blitzo]

For the defense of China you do not need aircraft carriers.

Let's not make big sweeping statements like that, which inevitably would make assumptions about what "defence of China" may or may not entail in terms of China's strategic interests and strategic environment, where those assumptions may or may not be agreed upon by most people.

... not to mention assumptions about how a carrier may then be used in relation to those assumed "defence of China" missions.

 

[Intrepid]

Aircraft carriers play an important role in power projection, not in the defense of the homeland. So aircraft carriers need endurance and have to operate independent and far away from the homeland.

In the future they are always part of an allied force and have to collaborate with forces of other nations.

 

[latenlazy]

Aircraft carriers play an important role in power projection, not in the defense of the homeland. So aircraft carriers need endurance and have to operate independent and far away from the homeland.

In the future they are always part of an allied force and have to collaborate with forces of other nations.

And what if "defence" meant knocking out bases and installations hundreds or thousands of miles way from your own soil?

 

[Intrepid]

And what if "defence" meant knocking out bases and installations hundreds or thousands of miles way from your own soil?

Then you need a "full developed" carrier with AEW, etc., same as for power projection and not for operation in the vicinity of your homeland.

 

[Iron Man]

And what if "defence" meant knocking out bases and installations hundreds or thousands of miles way from your own soil?

Right, or "unblocking" an enemy blockade, such as the Malacca Strait. These are all acts of defense that require a carrier group to achieve.