CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

discspinner · Dec 2, 2017

some pretty remarkable statements, even if it is a hard sell, as Admiral Yin Zhuo also states that he is a supporter of installing EMALS on the next carrier

'I can state clearly to everybody [that] our EMALS is much better than that currently used on the Ford by the US. Our technology is much more mature...We are far ahead of the US.

Jeff Head · Dec 2, 2017

discspinner said:
some pretty remarkable statements, even if it is a hard sell, as Admiral Yin Zhuo also states that he is a supporter of installing EMALS on the next carrier

'I can state clearly to everybody [that] our EMALS is much better than that currently used on the Ford by the US. Our technology is much more mature...We are far ahead of the US.

View attachment 43655 View attachment 43657 View attachment 43658 View attachment 43661

I am sorry...those last statements are just too much.

The US Navy has a nuclear powered carrier with EMALS installed and they are now launching many, many aircraft at sea from EMALs...and they are doing it day and night.

The PRC is certainly testing EMALs...whether they use it or not on their next carrier is still not known.

This admiral clelarly advocates for it...but the very fact that he has to advocate for it tells me the decision still has not been made.

Therefore, they are at the very least years away from having an operational EMALs ona new carrier if they put it on the one that they start next...whenever that may be.

It may be that they are even further away of they do not put it on the next one.

By the time the Chinese get one launched, the US will have two 100,000 carriers launched and operational with four EMALs each and a 3rd, the USS Enterprise, building.

SO, excuse me if I write the last statement off to strongly worded statements by a Chinese admiral wo is early in favor of it and wants to impress others that now is the time and he is doing so, I believe, by overstating the PRCs position with respect to the US.

The US is taking its time...but even then, they are now up to 12-16 aircraft etsing at a time now, and doing at night too. If you watch all of these videos, you will see the larger numbers of aircraft as the videos go on.

The PRC is going to do this...but not for a few more years at the least.

manqiangrexue · Dec 2, 2017

Jeff Head said:
I am sorry...those last statements are just too much.

The US Navy has a nuclear powered carrier with EMALS installed and they are now launching many, many aircraft at sea from EMALs...and they are doing it day and night.

The PRC is certainly testing EMALs...whether they use it or not on their next carrier is still not known.

This admiral clelarly advocates for it...but the very fact that he has to advocate for it tells me the decision still has not been made.

Therefore, they are at the very least years away from having an operational EMALs ona new carrier if they put it on the one that they start next...whenever that may be.

It may be that they are even further away of they do not put it on the next one.

By the time the Chinese get one launched, the US will have two 100,000 carriers launched and operational with four EMALs each and a 3rd, the USS Enterprise, building.

SO, excuse me if I write the last statement off to strongly worded statements by a Chinese admiral wo is early in favor of it and wants to impress others that now is the time and he is doing so, I believe, by overstating the PRCs position with respect to the US.

The US is taking its time...but even then, they are now up to 12-16 aircraft etsing at a time now, and doing at night too. If you watch all of these videos, you will see the larger numbers of aircraft as the videos go on.

The PRC is going to do this...but not for a few more years at the least.

What he is not saying is that China has more extensive experience with operating its EMALS system aboard aircraft carriers or that China is further along in deploying them. That would be just funny. What he is saying is that the design of China's EMALS system is superior to the USN's design used on the Fords. Maybe it produces faster launch rate, greater power, greater reliability, more energy efficient; I don't know and at this point we cannot know if he's telling the truth. But the Chinese design is newer and different, likely designed with much more capable supercomputers. So I don't dismiss the possibility of it being greatly superior to existing older designs.

longmarch · Dec 2, 2017

Pretty sure decision has been made, one reason why Yin is being so blatant.

He spoke from a technical perspective, basically saying that Ford still has many unresolved issues, and China's EMALS system does not face any big problems. Given that China is going to use it on a smaller and conventional powered carrier to launch as heavy aircraft, it could be that China's system is more efficient. And we already know that China's system is DC based, which is also on US roadmap.

China's next domestic carrier will be one of its kind. When China's carrier goes to nuclear power, US carrier may also upgrade to DC EMALS? That would be interesting to watch.

Another thing Yin said is that for sure China will have stealth carrier based fighter.

Give another 15 years, Chinese Navy will reach a whole new level. That's what I feel.

Jeff Head · Dec 3, 2017

manqiangrexue said:
What he is not saying is that China has more extensive experience with operating its EMALS system aboard aircraft carriers or that China is further along in deploying them. That would be just funny. What he is saying is that the design of China's EMALS system is superior to the USN's design used on the Fords. Maybe it produces faster launch rate, greater power, greater reliability, more energy efficient; I don't know and at this point we cannot know if he's telling the truth. But the Chinese design is newer and different, likely designed with much more capable supercomputers. So I don't dismiss the possibility of it being greatly superior to existing older designs.

His quote was

"Our EMALS is much better than that currently used on the Ford by the US. Our technology is much more mature...We are far ahead of the US."

I take issue with each of those statements.

Saying that his technology is more mature is not something that can be judged at all intriniscally because he is most probably not privy to all of the US workings and we are certainly not privy to his. Saying it is better can also not be judged because the Chinese design has not been seen out in the real world working. Saying he is ahead falls into the same category and is the least believable because the Chinese do not have a carrier upon which any EMALs is operating.

It is bascally in a test environment like the US technology was for several years.

In fact, it is clear that the US technology is practically (as in from a practical standpoint) ahead by far because it is incoorporated into an operating ship and working, right now for all the world to see while the Chinese design is still a dream on a test track on the ground in China.

So they certainly are not "ahead" and the other statements are very craftily stated, but absolutely impossible to prove one way or another, although again, from a practical statement the english statement would be "the proof is in the pudding." Right now the US has a plate full of pudding that it is enjoying...the chinese do not. When they do, we will better be able to judge.

The fact is, the US has been operating carriers for many many decades ahead of the Chinese in almost all aspects of carier development and operations...far ahead. Common sense will tell you that they know what is needed in that area and clearly have had the wherewithall to produce it, to build a nuclear powered ship with extremely proficient, powerful, and small reactors (which the Chinese have not been able to do) and that they are powering the first eletronmagnetic catapult in the world right now on the Ford.

As I said...the hinese are learly testing theirs and bully for them for doing so.

But he is encouraging leadership to use it so it is clear that the decision has not been made and it implies that there may be others who do not think it is as eady as he does.

Still, I wish them the best...but I know precisely that they are not ahead in the technology. They have not produced a working, operational model of a carrier catapult of any kind to this date, including EMALS. The US has, and will have at least two such carriers and perhaps three before China produces its first one with EMALs if indeed they do.

And we do not know at this point that they will.

Perhaps the admiral will get his way.

I personally believe that the Chinese ultimately will have CATOBAR carriers.

If they build a nuclear carrier, next it may have EMALS. That's my own estimate on it. But we will have to also see how they do with the power requirements for the nuclear powered carrier when they produce it and then see how it operates.

manqiangrexue · Dec 3, 2017

Jeff Head said:
His quote was

"ur EMALS is much better than that currently used on the Ford by the US. Our technology is much more mature...We are far ahead of the US."

I take issue with each of those statements.

Saying that his technology is more mature is not something that can be judged at all intriniscally because he is most probably not privy to all of the US workings and we are certainly not privy to his. Saying it is better can alos not be judged because the Chinese design has not been seen out in the real world working. Saying he is ahead falls into the same categiry and is the least believable because the Chinese do not have a carrier upon which any EMALs is operating.

It is bascally in a test environment like the US technology was for several years.

In fact, it is clear that the US technology is practically (as in from a practical standpoint) ahead by far because it is incoorporated into an operating ship and working, right now for all the world to see while the Chinese design is still a dream on a test track on the ground in China.

So they certainly are not "ahrad" and the other statements are very craftily stated, but absolutely imposible to prove one way or another.

The fact is, the US has been operatingcarriers for many many decades aheand of the chinese and common sense will tell you that they know what is needed in that areane and clearly have had the wherewithall to produce it, to build a nuclear powered ship with extremely proficient, powerful, and small reactors (which the chinese have not been able to do) and that they arwe powering the first eletronmagnetic catapult in the world right now on the Ford.

As I said...the hinese are learly testing theirs and bully for them for doing so.

But he is encouraging leadership to use it so it is clear that the decision has not been made and it implies that there may be others who do not think it is as eady as he does.

Still, I wish them the best...but I know precisely that they are not ahead in the technology. They have not produced a working, operational model of a carrier catapult of any kind to this date, including EMALS. The US has, and will have at least two such carriers and perhaps three before China produces its first one with EMALs if indeed they do.

And we do not know at this point that they will.

Perhaps the admiral will get his way.

I personally believe that the chinese ultimatelly will have CATOBAR carriers.

Iof they build a nuclear carrier, next it may have EMALS. That's my own estimate on it. But we will have to also see how they do with the power requirements for the nuclear powered carrier when they produce it.

You seem to be contradicting yourself in the bold parts.

Although the US is far ahead in making whole nuclear EMALS carriers, it does not mean that all of its systems are the best; it just means that they are together. For example, you may have more experience making televisions but I might make a screen way better than yours and you can't say that just because yours is a whole product while mine is a component that your screen is better than mine. We're only talking about the EMALS, not the whole carrier here.

True, the Chinese system is on the ground while the US system is on a ship but that alone doesn't indicate which EMALS system is better. The one on the ground could be more powerful, faster, more efficient and more reliable; it's just not on a ship.

It might be, or it might not. We don't have the info to judge.

Jeff Head · Dec 3, 2017

manqiangrexue said:
You seem to be contradicting yourself in the bold parts.

Although the US is far ahead in making whole nuclear EMALS carriers, it does not mean that all of its systems are the best; it just means that they are together. For example, you may have more experience making televisions but I might make a screen way better than yours and you can't say that just because yours is a whole product while mine is a component that your screen is better than mine. We're only talking about the EMALS, not the whole carrier here.

True, the Chinese system is on the ground while the US system is on a ship but that alone doesn't indicate which EMALS system is better. The one on the ground could be more powerful, faster, more efficient and more reliable; it's just not on a ship.

It might be, or it might not. We don't have the info to judge.

His statements that they are ahead are impossible to prove..because we do onot have the access to his systsmes.

My statement that the US is ahead is easy to prove...the US has an operational EMALS system in use right now...China does not.

That is not the same as saying which one is nesessarily the best...but with the US background and experience, and with having an operational one that is successful...well, the preponderance of evidence is obvious.

On top of that, we have plenty of info to make a judgement.

I have been involved in engineering, and specifically engineering project for military projects and naval projects for many years.

The US has an advanced, operating electromagnetic catapult system operating right now.

China does not.

The US has been operating carriers and the susbsystems that make them work for many many decades.

China has not...and is yet to build a single CATOBAR carrier with any type of catapult.

The US has gone through many generations of aircraft and launch systems for their carriers, and has improved on them and, with other countries who also has experience at the time (like the RN) improved on those designs.

China has not.

The US electromagnetic catapult system is operational, right now, and is successfully launching many aircraft at sea after years of successful operation on land.

China has a test facility on land, but it is shrowded in secrecy. The US is much more open about its system.

It is clear that this Admiral wants the next Chinese carrier to be CATOBAR and to have EMALs.

Good for him, but the fact that he has come out and made such a statement and says he prefers it be so, is indicative that others may not, and that he is not sure it will be.

Those are signals of a system that is not as mature as he indicates, and certainly not as ready to be installed by other leadership within CHina.

As most people on these forums know I am highly impressed by what China/the PRC has accomlpished over the last 15-20 years and have been tracking it and analyzing it for the last 15 years online. But I do not allow that to go to my head and allow me to believe everything that is said, like what this Admrial ahs indicated.

It sounds like someone trying to convince others to try the exosting EMALS they are testing. But a project like this that is being tested needs to mature and be fully vetted...like the US did...beofr it is committed to a build. Once you go down that path in the design and then particularly the construction, it is not easy or cheap to change things if it does not work as well as you would like.

So...there is no contracition in the fact that the US right now is ahead in terms of operational EMALs systems on aircraft carriers....and that it will remain that way for at least the next 4-6 years if not longer. My guess is that it will be onlnger because the US is operating one now successfully and is only going to learn more about them as time goes on.

And it is in a position to know because of its long experience with carriers, their aircraft, and their operations.

This is not a dis against China. China has impressed many of us with what it has done to even be able to get operational as it has done. But it is still very inexperienced in terms of overall carrier operations and it may have more to learn with respect to making such a launch system operational and successful. That is understandable and they would be smart not to jump to fast.

Anyhow, time will tell.

kurutoga · Dec 3, 2017

The designer of EMAL system in China (Mr. Ma) was quoted saying the Chinese system is DC based, therefore it is more efficient and causes no health hazard. There was some key technologies but with it the actual system is simpler.

The US system is AC based (the same as previous generation of design from Mr. Ma's office) so in his opinion the design is inferior. He certainly did not mean to talk about the maturity level or operations, just system design. It is unknown if next gen EMAL from US will take the same route, but usually, they all end up the same (designs from different countries will converge)

While the US system is already in final testing, the Chinese system will take a few years (very possibly 10+ years) to become reality (on a new ship). But it is important to know the differences in design principles.

manqiangrexue · Dec 3, 2017

Jeff Head said:
His statements that they are ahead are impossible to prove..because we do onot have the access to his systsmes.

My statement that the US is ahead is easy to prove...the US has an operational EMALS system in use right now...China does not.

That is not the same as saying which one is nesessarily the best...but with the US background and experience, and with having an operational one that is successful...well, the preponderance of evidence is obvious.

On top of that, we have plenty of info to make a judgement.

I have been involved in engineering, and specifically engineering project for military projects and naval projects for many years.

The US has an advanced, operating electromagnetic catapult system operating right now.

China does not.

The US has been operating carriers and the susbsystems that make them work for many many decades.

China has not...and is yet to build a single CATOBAR carrier with any type of catapult.

The US has gone through many generations of aircraft and launch systems for their carriers, and has improved on them and, with other countries who also has experience at the time (like the RN) improved on those designs.

China has not.

The US electromagnetic catapult system is operational, right now, and is successfully launching many aircraft at sea after years of successful operation on land.

China has a test facility on land, but it is shrowded in secrecy. The US is much more open about its system.

It is clear that this Admiral wants the next Chinese carrier to be CATOBAR and to have EMALs.

Good for him, but the fact that he has come out and made such a statement and says he prefers it be so, is indicative that others may not, and that he is not sure it will be.

Those are signals of a system that is not as mature as he indicates, and certainly not as ready to be installed by other leadership within CHina.

As most people on these forums know I am highly impressed by what China/the PRC has accomlpished over the last 15-20 years and have been tracking it and analyzing it for the last 15 years online. But I do not allow that to go to my head and allow me to believe everything that is said, like what this Admrial ahs indicated.

It sounds like someone trying to convince others to try the exosting EMALS they are testing. But a project like this that is being tested needs to mature and be fully vetted...like the US did...beofr it is committed to a build. Once you go down that path in the design and then particularly the construction, it is not easy or cheap to change things if it does not work as well as you would like.

So...there is no contracition in the fact that the US right now is ahead in terms of operational EMALs systems on aircraft carriers....and that it will remain that way for at least the next 4-6 years if not longer. My guess is that it will be onlnger because the US is operating one now successfully and is only going to learn more about them as time goes on.

And it is in a position to know because of its long experience with carriers, their aircraft, and their operations.

This is not a dis against China. China has impressed many of us with what it has done to even be able to get operational as it has done. But it is still very inexperienced in terms of overall carrier operations and it may have more to learn with respect to making such a launch system operational and successful. That is understandable and they would be smart not to jump to fast.

Anyhow, time will tell.

Every time I raise the possibility of a single component being better than another, you try to counter with the false logic of comparing that component to a full system, concluding that the full system must be better simply because it is a working full system. I'll reiterate the example of a 2017 prototype television screen vs a 1997 whole television; clearly, you cannot say that the whole TV is ahead in screen technology just because it's a working full system. This conversation won't progress if you don't grasp the conceptual differences between full system vs. single component.

And additionally, you cannot even say that A should be better than B simply because A has many generations of experience but B is a newcomer. China is a new comer in the supercomputer field. Japan is a new comer (compared to USA) in the automotive field. These days, reliance on advanced super-computing for design has made leap-frogging generations easier than ever before, relegating the value of experience in many instances.

PS, You said it's not possible to prove his statement either way, then contradicted that by saying there's proof that the US is ahead (just because it's mounted on a ship).

Iron Man · Dec 3, 2017

I think it's certainly within the realm of possibility that the only reason China doesn't have an EM cat on a CATOBAR carrier is because China hasn't yet built a CATOBAR carrier, not necessarily because the EM cat isn't mature or otherwise not ready for installation. So really we can't judge the truth of the admiral's statements one way or the way just because the Ford is fitted with EMALS and the PLAN hasn't fitted any carrier with their version.

CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

discspinner

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

longmarch

Junior Member

Jeff Head

General

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

Jeff Head

General

kurutoga

Junior Member

manqiangrexue

Brigadier

Iron Man

Major