I too would like to know how the statement maker can be so certain that the Chinese system is better than the US one. I'm not against the idea that it is but unless they have extremely effective spies, how could they know? And why would they so openly reveal how much they know?
CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
No...you are misunderstanding and misreading what I am syaing.
It is not possible to prove which is best because we...and the Admrial as well does not have all of the data on both...in terms of qualitative.
I said the US was leading...and it is, and that is demonstrable because it has an operational system. China does not. It also has decades of experience and has a system now working that will be on two more carriers working before the Chinese have there first operational. Therefore the US is leading.
As to the quality, I then said we can make judgments, and based on the preponderance of evidence we can easily judge that the US system is probably the best. But that is a judgement and not proof.
I am saying this to try and let you understand my reasoning.
You can believe whatever you wish.
But we have now thrashed this bacj and forth...and it is clear that you are not understanding my meaning so I write this last time to try and reason with you so you can understand it.
There is no need to keep going back and forth however if you simply want to make the same type of statement as the Admrial.
As I said, I am very impressed with what China has done...but that does not lead me to making fairly outlandish statements that do not take the evidence of many decades and that eperience into accord, or take into accord the actual facts as they exist.
The US Navy leads the world in almost every field of naval technology. It has the money to spend on the research, the develpment, and the building and operations and has been doing that since before world war II.
Now China is doing it...and they are moving along rapidly. But I do not know any one who believes that the Chinese are leading the US in vaval technology or capability.
The same holds here for EMALs in terms of judgement calls and the preponderance of evidence.
Until prven otherwise...I will go with that because I have been working in this engineering field for many years...though I am now retired.
I wish you the best and hope you better understand my reasoning and what I have been trying to say.
Adieu.
Iron MAn, the prponderance of evidence is clear.
And my point is not that we can prove one way or the other...but we certainly can judge.
With y own engineering background and experence working with naval projects, and with what we see beofre our eyes in this moment, that evidence is clear
This does not mean the Chinese will not or cannot develop one. But it is clear that there is still discussion and differing opinions within the PRC itself as to whether they are ready or not.
You want to know why?
Because if you committ to such a technology prematurely and are wrong, you will delay your whole prograam and waist a lot of money and time...they will be very careful NOT to do that.
Time will tell...and perhaps there next carrier will be CATOBAR, with nuclear power and with EM. But I doubt they will reach for all of it at once nbased on what I have seen over the last 20 years...and I would advise them not to. There is no real need to.
I will also say this...in this feld, whether whatever the Chinese has is better or not (and I believe in making a judgement that based on the evidence it is probably not) that in any case the US is leading the field right now in EMALs for obvious reasons.
Anyhow time will tell all in any case.
The PRC has done amazing things...but they still have along ways to go to be in a position to challenge the US Navy in terms of technology, equipment available, and operational experience and maturity. That takes time and money.
I will say (as I have on numerous occasions) it is clear that the Chinese are willing to spend the time and money to get themselves there and I respect that. They have done and are doing amazing things...and I respect that too.
But they have to consolidate all of this new equiment. develo strategies and policies and even philosophies for it all...and that also take time and money, again which they are clearly willing to spend.
They have to be careful not to get ahead of themselves however...it is a delicate thing to know when too much starts to hamper your ability to consolidate it all and make it work together.
There wealkest area...and it is still a huge one...is in nuclear submarine capabilities, the reactors to run them quetly and the ability to build them in any numbers to any degree that they cannot be relatively easily found. This is a huge issue and I know it is one they are working hard on...but to date have not had nearly the success that they have experienced in their surface vessels lile the Type 055 now...but the Type 052C, Type 052D, Type 0654A, ype 056, Type 071. etc., etc.
Last edited:
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
The US is leading in what? Having an operational system means that the US has greater experience making whole systems. Having decades of carrier operating experience suggests that the US has more experience using carriers. Neither translates to a superior EMAL design, which China also has a working variant of... on the ground.
And what evidence are you using to judge quality? I'm expecting something along the lines of comparing specifications of both systems, not a reminder that the US has more systems or more experience operating carriers.
I didn't parrot the Admiral's words; I specifically said that I cannot determine if they are true or false. But I am open to the possibility that they are true.
Jura The idiot
General
seeing discussions about the future, I'll try to preserve here what began some time ago in
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
and I've kept it in
Aircraft Carriers III
Jun 16, 2017
let's wait and see takeoff speeds/payloads, both in USN and PLAN
EDIT
thunderchief
Senior Member
thunderchief was last seen:
Aug 12, 2016
:-(
Aircraft Carriers II (Closed to posting)
and I've kept it in
Aircraft Carriers III
Jun 16, 2017
the point: whatever the catapults, the deck still matters LOL
let's wait and see takeoff speeds/payloads, both in USN and PLAN
EDIT
thunderchief
Senior Member
thunderchief was last seen:
Aug 12, 2016
:-(
Last edited:
Fine...and I have explained to you what I meant by what I said in terms of one being better than the other versus someone being ahead of someone else, and upon making a judgement on the first based on evidence.
No need to thrash this to death.
I make my judgement based on my knowledge and experience and what I see around me. The US has a system that works and it is now at sea genning up its air wing in its use. It is now beyond the "test" stage and is in the operational development stage. The will achieve initial operational capability fairly soon IMHO at the rate they are now going.
When CHina has one at sea, is finished testing it, and are reaching for operational capability, they will be where the US is now...and I am sure that time will ome.
We just do not know when...and if I were advising the Chinese, I would advise them not to comlpicate their first CATOBAR carrier too much. They are going to have a LOT to learn without making it more risky than it needs to be.
Anyhow, they will decide whatever they decide.
Tim will tell all.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
Well, the CCP is known for having very effective spies. Many credit the defeat of the much richer, better-armed, better-educated, better-trained KMT to the CCP's spying prowess. They are also known to be especially good hackers. (I think by now, I don't need to cite anything for that LOL) On top of that, the US is quite transparent with their progress. Not that I normally quote Trump as a source, here is an excerpt from the president's interactions with an unnamed naval officer in May 2017:
I said, “You don’t use steam anymore for catapult?” “No sir.” I said, “Ah, how is it working?” “Sir, not good. Not good. Doesn’t have the power.”
via
Here are another two public articles both dated June 2017 about the issues with American EMALS:
Read both as they cite different issues (from each other and from the Trump interview).
To their credit, they did say that they can get at least 1 of the issues fixed and good to go by 2019:
But if the Chinese EMALS has no such problems, that right there can tell Ying Zhuo that he's working with an inherently superior design.
Last edited:
I see this debate as revolving around two things:
1. Define technology - is it simply focussing on the hardware / design itself, or does it take a broader meaning of the entire systems application?
2. Can this be proven? - One may very well assert one has a technology that is advanced, but if it cannot be proven then it really doesn't truly have any meaning. The US *may* have a less advanced technology in terms of the EMALS hardware / design itself but at least we can prove overall what they can do.
1. Define technology - is it simply focussing on the hardware / design itself, or does it take a broader meaning of the entire systems application?
2. Can this be proven? - One may very well assert one has a technology that is advanced, but if it cannot be proven then it really doesn't truly have any meaning. The US *may* have a less advanced technology in terms of the EMALS hardware / design itself but at least we can prove overall what they can do.
I think we should focus on the fact that the admiral is making a very specific (and therefore limited) claim, that their EM cat is ready to go, and that it is superior to and more mature than EMALS. He is not saying that China has more experience operating cats, or integrating cats into flight ops, or any of that. He is very specifically claiming that China's EM cat is better than EMALS, presumably based on open source information as well as any espionage he has in hand. He is essentially saying that if his EM cat is magically teleported into a Chinese CATOBAR carrier right this minute, it would perform better than EMALS currently is. You say that the US is "leading" in EM cats. This is definitely true in some ways, but not necessarily true in the way that the admiral is claiming. US is certainly the first and only country that is operating an EM cat off a carrier and gaining experience with it and fixing its flaws in the meantime, so in that way the US is certainly leading. However, this does not necessarily mean that EMALS is superior technology to China's EM cat or that it is more mature, if by mature we are referring to a working design that has little to no design flaws that need any further fixes down the road. It is certainly possible that the US is both ahead in operational experience with EMALS while simultaneously behind in the underlying technology of EM cats. The first point we can readily take to be self-evident; the second point is anyone's guess and does not depend on the first point.
I think there is a non-zero chance that CV-18 will be conventional IEP with 3-4 EM cats.
I think Jeff and Manqiangrexu are both correct in their own way. While also choosing to ignore the others' perspective on how the question is approached. In either case, Chinese EMALS is in development so it's completely foolish to make any big statements about future superiority when the product is still being designed and tested. While it's promising for PLAN that they are exploring these alternatives to steam catapult, and also promising that China now has the tools, talent, and infrastructure to make these things successful with the main barriers being time and resources, it is fast becoming a nation with mountains of potential that can be realised. No other country can pool together the resources like these two giants. NONE. No other country has the technological and financial means to pull anything major off anymore except for these two. May sound like big statements but this is a reality. Even for a tech power like Japan to pull off a fighter project, copied or derived from whatever, it will drain much from the entire nation for decades just to do this. Let alone manage this along with dozens of other major projects. Argue about these little details all you want. Big picture is measured in centuries and PLAN will have carriers as capable one day. The fact they are testing EMALS already after only receiving their first carrier (ever!) just a few years ago is monumental. It reveals the ENORMOUS scale these heavy industries are investigating many fields of technology. This is also true in many other areas. Nuclear powered carriers should really be the next focus.
I'm of the opinion that quality of the first step does not matter one iota. Doing it is everything. China has the manpower and funds to continue improving. Just like getting started on a big project. The first step is the hardest to take. Looks like they've taken it here, and taken it with promising conviction. And just like quantum computing, super computing, renewable energy techs, drones ............ they will eventually get it right and possibly even dominate and lead.
I'm of the opinion that quality of the first step does not matter one iota. Doing it is everything. China has the manpower and funds to continue improving. Just like getting started on a big project. The first step is the hardest to take. Looks like they've taken it here, and taken it with promising conviction. And just like quantum computing, super computing, renewable energy techs, drones ............ they will eventually get it right and possibly even dominate and lead.