CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[nlalyst]

You’re missing my actual main point, which is about not nitpicking components of a system to determine net tradeoffs.

The question at issue debated by @Anlsvrthng and @taxiya was the total system weight difference between EMALS and steam catapult. To derive the sum total one adds up all the components.

The weight question came up as part of debate over which implementation is more energy efficient. At the same time members like @Higgle and @Atomicfrog sidestepped the debate by pointing out that the main differentiator is fine actuation control, which is argued to be a major strong point of EMALS. Then @silentlurker threw in the question of system reliability. And now you argue that we need to consider all of the above combined and how they interact.

Doesn't look like a very synchronized discussion, does it?

 

[latenlazy]

The question at issue debated by @Anlsvrthng and @taxiya was the total system weight difference between EMALS and steam catapult. To derive the sum total one adds up all the components.

The weight question came up as part of debate over which implementation is more energy efficient. At the same time members like @Higgle and @Atomicfrog sidestepped the debate by pointing out that the main differentiator is fine actuation control, which is argued to be a major strong point of EMALS. Then @silentlurker threw in the question of system reliability. And now you argue that we need to consider all of the above combined and how they interact.

Doesn't look like a very synchronized discussion, does it?

Synchronized discussions are very rare here. That said I think my main point stands. Without and itemized analysis we won’t know the actual answer, and nitpicking components don’t help, but it’s worth noting that mass control components tend to be much heavier than electrical ones, even when you factor in larger generators and power storage. You can’t simply point to the mass of one system while pretending the other system is massless.

I am not assuming this, several high ranking USA representative , reports and the observation of the cost overruns showing that the "the designers and procurers of these systems aren’t doing those assessments themselves".

So it is more of a fact : )

Yes, for the *US’s* program. That’s like saying we should expect all next generation destroyers to have delays and cost overruns like the US’s. The problem with the US’s EMALS program is well documented but that doesn’t mean it’s representative of the attributes of the technology itself. One poorly implemented instance of a technology does not mean all instances of that technology will be poorly implemented.

 

[VESSEL]

Photos taken today.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[jimmyjames30x30]

Photos taken today.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 68961

This poster seems to believe that what he is seeing right now do NOT suggest it to be a conventional powered ship.
"没有一点烟道的痕迹哟"，could mean "There are not trace (of evidence) of exhaust ducting."

 

[Intrepid]

Photos taken today.

What is behind the aircraft carrier, a factory building? Will 003 soon be hidden from our view?

 

[Orthan]

Photos taken today.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

View attachment 68961

Compared to photos posted here on january 17, there are more support strutures inside the module. Cant be certain that more modules havent been installed, but probably not:

Finally clearer images of the new module(s) attached to the Type 003 carrier ...

(via

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

&

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

View attachment 67688View attachment 67689View attachment 67690

 

[taxiya]

Wasn't the whole issue with Ford that the catapults were too interconnected and had shared systems instead of individual ones?

I don't know the details of Ford's problem. But why would interconnection being a source of problem more than steam cat? The 4 steam catapults have all their steam reservoirs interconnected.

 

[Intrepid]

At Ford, three energy storage devices (each with four flywheels) supply four catapults. There were reports in the media that the power distributor caused problems.

During the test installation on land, one energy storage device with four flywheels supplied the only catapult. There was no power distributor.

 

[taxiya]

Yes. It was a poor system design. My suspicion is that they didn’t properly define their requirements, or did sufficient design review over how their requirements were implemented.

and @silentlurker,

I agree, the problem is more of a bad overall system design and research rather than fault of individual component or the EMALS concept. One example of Ford's many problems is AAG hit by a major setback of the water twister. The design spec was met by the manufacturer, however in the integration test, the twisters blade cracked under higher than specified load. It is the failure of the system designer (the US Navy) to predict the right specification. This is same as the British's problem of type 75 destroyer, the Navy failed to consider the extra demand on the Gas Turbine's working condition in a hotter weather.

It is very inappropriate to use Ford as a bench mark for EMALS to compare with mature tech of steam catapult (many decades improvement).

 

[taxiya]

At Ford, three energy storage devices (each with four flywheels) supply four catapults. There were reports in the media that the power distributor caused problems.

During the test installation on land, one energy storage device with four flywheels supplied the only catapult. There was no power distributor.

I can imagine the problem Ford faces. The storage device has a voltage of high frequency, the catapults are linear motors which have resonant frequency. Disconnecting and connecting the two while there are electricity energy is very risky and tricky work, it is like switching on and off high power source in a live power grid, a fault can burn lots of things.