China launches 3rd Aircraft Carrier

Investment Analysis Clubs Macro Economic Trends and Risks
1

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/17/china/china-new-aircraft-…

Last year, Beijing bristled at a security pact between the US, the UK and Australia named AUKUS, an agreement by which the three nations would exchange military information and technology to form a closer defense partnership in Asia. The naval exercises attended by members of the resuscitated informal dialogue between the US, Japan, Australia and India, known as the Quad, has further unsettled Beijing.

China on Friday launched its third and most advanced aircraft carrier from Shanghai’s Jiangnan Shipyard, with new combat systems that experts say are fast catching up with the United States.

Named “Fujian,” the ship is China’s first domestically designed and built catapult aircraft carrier, state-run news agency Xinhua reported.

Its electromagnetic catapult-assisted launch system is a major upgrade from the less advanced ski jump-style system used on the Liaoning and the Shandong, its two predecessors, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank.

The new system, similar to the ones used by US aircraft carriers, will allow China to launch a wider variety of aircraft from the Fujian faster and with more ammunition.

In addition to the launch system, the Fujian is equipped with blocking devices, and a full-load displacement of more than 80,000 tons, Xinhua reported, adding that the ship will carry out mooring tests and navigation tests after the launch.

China now has interests far from their shores as well as local interests in the South China Sea as well as Taiwan which are being challenged by the US and its allies. They are in the process of building a fleet capable of answering that challenge abroad and create a superiority in their sphere of influence closer to home.

Jeff

9 Likes
2

Its electromagnetic catapult-assisted launch system is a major upgrade

I am not engineer enough to know…but this did not for us early on. Did the US manage to ever make its first electromagnetic catapult assisted launch system work? I thought Trump ordered the Navy to dump that scheme? But that would have meant a complete overhaul of an aircraft carrier already built in the months he took office.

Where did that last stand? It was all questionable tech.

3

The new system, similar to the ones used by US aircraft carriers,

Sorry to clarify the US catapults are mostly steam. Steam works.

Magnets have screwy as hell control. Again I am not engineering enough to know where this stands.

I have a feeling US Naval intelligence is having a laugh.

If the early designs for their ship thought of a competition with the latest in the US…it might be ha ha ha…

4

This is about Trump insisting we go back to steam catapults. You don’t think the Chinese Communists wont admit a failure? Now do you? Once the ship is built it is next to impossible to do refit it for steam.

https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a276327…

Unfortunately, EMALS has run into serious developmental issues that weren’t worked out before the system went from land-based trials to installation on the new USS Gerald R. Ford. EMALS, along with several other advanced technologies, delayed the introduction of Ford to the fleet by approximately three years.

The latest news is that the launch system, which recently underwent 747 test launches, experienced 10 critical failures during that time—far below the 4,166 mean time between failures expected of the system—and is unlikely to ever meet that standard of reliability.

5

They should name it after America.

Who helped fund it and build it.

6

They should name it after America.

Who helped fund it and build it.

Sort of ironic isn’t it?

Anymouse

The YJ-21 is part of a series of Chinese missiles meant to be ‘carrier killers.’ It is ultra-fast and has an unpredictable flight path. Beijing has long been apprehensive of the potency of American aircraft carrier groups and their capacity to travel across the world and exert military dominance.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/reboot/closer-look-chinas-…

A Closer Look at China’s ‘Carrier-Killer’ Missiles
Do they deserve the hype?

by TNI Staff
Here’s What You Need to Remember: If China does have the means to locate a carrier strike group near the DF-26’s maximum range and the ability to feed accurate targeting data to the weapon, it means that even a naval unmanned combat aircraft with mission radius of 1,500 nautical miles wouldn’t keep the carrier out of harm’s way.

The U.S. Navy’s carrier fleet is increasingly challenged in the Western Pacific as China continues its efforts develop anti-access/area denial (A2/AD) capabilities. Some of those systems include the infamous DF-21D anti-ship ballistic missile and Xian H-6K bomber armed with advanced air launched cruise missiles.

2 Likes
7

"Unfortunately, EMALS has run into serious developmental issues that weren’t worked out before the system went from land-based trials to installation on the new USS Gerald R. Ford. EMALS, along with several other advanced technologies, delayed the introduction of Ford to the fleet by approximately three years.

You don’t think it’s possible that China could make the system work even though Americans couldn’t?

2 Likes
8

You don’t think it’s possible that China could make the system work even though Americans couldn’t?

No! And Dem stinkin’ Nips can’t sink no battle ships in Pearl Harbor either. Everybody know that Pearl Harbor is too shallow for air dropped torpedos. And der ain’t no stinkin’ Jap no where dat can figure it out ifin we can’t figure it out!

https://www.pearlharboraviationmuseum.org/blog/pearl-harbor-…

Cheers
Qazulight

2 Likes
9

You don’t think it’s possible that China could make the system work even though Americans couldn’t?

My concern is not that the US or Chinese per say can not do it.

My concern is that for engineering it might not be reliable enough.

I see my BIL a retired MIT physicist later this week.

I am waiting on a call from a close friend who is a retired engineer. He was on a Navy ship in the Gulf of Tonkin during the “incident”. The men on board had no idea there was an incident till they got back state’s side 6 months later. He worked on electrical systems at that time.

I am very curious what they report back.

The navy has reported how unreliable the system has been while asking for more money. Now the navy is not publicly letting anyone know if it finally is reliable. There are no easy to search for stats in a Google search. But when EMALS was unreliable there were stats.

As for the “nip” comment I take that as very simplistic satire. As if I am supposed to take sides against China only or without facts. I glad the world does not work that way. The comment is perverted instead of intelligent.

10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_Aircraft_Launc…

Between November 2019 and September 2020, the Pentagon’s director of testing Robert Behler accessed 3,975 cycles onboard the carrier and concluded that EMALS broke down to often and was unreliable.[31] A January 2021 DOT&E Report stated: “During the 3,975 catapult launches […] EMALS demonstrated an achieved reliability of 181 mean cycles between operational mission failure (MCBOMF) […] This reliability is well below the requirement of 4,166 MCBOMF.”[32]

The problem is there is no further discussion of the failure rate. Instead all Naval articles discuss the number of launches and make zero mention of the critical failure rate. The Ford is going into service.

The real question, again, is can this be done reliably This has nothing to do with American v Chinese engineers. This has to do with engineering principles. With the physics of electromagnetic tools.

Just because two militaries and a bunch of MBA are sold on it does not mean it works “reliably”. Launching two aircraft carriers to hoist two flags could be a very big laugh.

The bill for the USS Ford proves a lot of other wise brilliant people are working as idiots.

11

Its electromagnetic catapult-assisted launch system is a major upgrade from the less advanced ski jump-style system used on the Liaoning and the Shandong, its two predecessors, according to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank.

Amusement parks have used electromagnetic propulsion for years on various roller coasters and other adrenaline rides.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launched_roller_coaster

From wikipedia:
Linear induction motor (LIM) and linear synchronous motor (LSM) coasters use propulsion via electromagnets, which utilize large amounts of electricity to propel the coaster train along its track into the ride elements (e.g. inversions, twists, turns and short drops)...
...An example of an LSM launched roller coaster is Maverick at Cedar Point in Sandusky, Ohio.

A short 2-minute video of the Maverick coaster (sorry if there are ads before):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUpQMWGVw4g

A longer explanation of the LIM and LSM technologies (6 minutes):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPTL_PXo0oY

Of course, the Navy’s catapult system needs to accelerate a much heavier F-18 or similar aircraft to the required take-off velocity. Also, the Navy needs to make everything military grade, which may or may not improve reliability. For these kinds of new technology, I always wonder if the military designers go to other industries such as the roller coaster ride engineers, to see how they do things? Or did the military guys try to “reinvent the wheel” every time for their application?

As with any new technology, bugs need to be worked out, and the fixes applied and evaluated in the next generation. That is how engineering works.

  • Pete
3 Likes
12

Pete,

Back to my saw I can google the critical failure rate during development. I can not google the critical failure rate with the launch of the ship. The Navy is not even saying it passes. Instead we get a sort of lame it has worked over 8000 times. That is vacuous if the critical failure rate is high.