It Appears I was WRONG: 2nd Chinese Indigenous Aircraft Carrier to Have EMALS Catapults

Breakthrough to power most advanced jet launch system on China’s second home-grown aircraft carrier
Military chiefs have given green light for new integrated propulsion system capable of powering electromagnetic catapults, experts say

The development of the integrated propulsion system (IPS) would allow the vessel to be more efficient, allowing more power for an electromagnetic catapult, rather than a less technologically advanced steam-driven catapult launch system, the sources said.

China’s first two carriers, the Liaoning and its sister ship, the Type 001A, are conventionally powered vessels equipped with Soviet-designed ski-jump launch systems.

But an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS) on the Type 002, China’s second home-grown aircraft carrier, would mean less wear and tear on the planes and allow more aircraft to be launched in a shorter time than the ski and steam-catapult systems.

www.scmp.com...

I was wrong. Zaph was right. I'm ready to eat crow.

a reply to: anzha

Dont feel bad the ship will still be a POS.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

remains to be seen.

I read that as "EMAILS catapult".

The good thing about it not being nuclear is if they decide to do a port call locally for PR they can actually dock it, I missed out when the USS Constellation came into port.

These days they have to anchor way off shore.

Would love to see a huge carrier up close.


EDIT* I was wrong, USS Kitty Hawk came in 2004! No idea how I missed that bugger it.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: anzha

Dont feel bad the ship will still be a POS.

LOL,In the age of modern missiles, carriers are obsolete. Like corks bobbing on the ocean.

Military nomenclature is LST (large slow target).

a reply to: intrptr

Don't say that like it's a given. The accuracy and reliability of ASBMs is still up for debate. Also you're leaving out the difficult task of the carrier in the first place, and keeping your missiles alive while its F-35s go out hunting.

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: intrptr

Don't say that like it's a given. The accuracy and reliability of ASBMs is still up for debate. Also you're leaving out the difficult task of the carrier in the first place, and keeping your missiles alive while its F-35s go out hunting.

Reliable and accurate. As far back as the 80's Falkland War, despite chaff and jamming, too Exocet missiles struck British vessels . That was two for two. In the late 80's, The USS Stark was struck by 2 Exocet missiles, again two for two.

The Exocet has been the premiere pattern for anti shipping missile technology, further developed today to a fine art. In 2016 a Yemen shore battery fired one sea skimming missile at a Saudi ship off shore, direct hit.

As far as 'keeping missiles alive', consider Irans coast is a thousand miles of shoreline . They have mobile missile launchers hidden in caves, in rail cars, trucks, buildings, all disguised as anything but a missile launcher.

If they only had one missile per mile of coastline in the Gulf, thats a thousand missiles, more than enough to overwhelm any ASBM systems.

a reply to: intrptr

I was specifically referring to Chinese capabilities like the DF-21D. And yes the Falklands does prove the viability of sea skimming anti ship missiles, it was against ships that lacked AEGIS or modern countermeasures like towed decoys. Hell, the British frigates lacked proper CIWS (Sea Dart was not effective against missiles). It's pretty easy to look up the cascade of errors which led to the sinking of the Sheffield

www.theguardian.com... is a half decent article on the subject.


The Stark didn't have AEGIS, modern fire control, VLS, and was at a low state of readiness at the time of attack. There's no guarantee that the attack would've succeeded against a vintage Tico or a modern destroyer.

Besides, modern planners are much more worried about modern Russian supersonic cruise missiles, let alone hypersonic boost-glide missiles. Iran's dirty trick would more likely be to mine the strait of hormuz, preserving their missiles for later.

originally posted by: Kettu
I read that as "EMAILS catapult".

Good, I wasn't the only one.

I wouldn't write off carriers just yet.

a reply to: BASSPLYR

I laughed but their new ships are a clear step away from Soviet ideology and a clear embracement of US style and naval strategy. Their refit society carrier is clearly leaps and bounds ahead of it's Russian and Indian peers.

a reply to: hawkguy

I was addressing your 'accuracy and reliability' question, earlier.

Nowadays, shipboard systems may become overwhelmed by sheer numbers.

Beyond that, it only takes one or two...

alert5.com...

The Chinese are claiming thousands of launches of the J-15 with the EMALS.

a reply to: anzha

Validation testing. It would be pretty embarrassing to put it on the ship and it not work.

a reply to: anzha

New Hypersonic missiles will make carriers obsolete.

Nothing more than a large slow moving target.

Shooting them down is nigh on an impossibility.

Carriers, just like the battleships and Dreadnaughts of old have had their day in the Sun im afraid.

Don't get me wrong they are amazing pieces of technology, but the fact of the matter remains that as our theatre of war changes so does the technologies and hardware required to wage war.

And when just one hypersonic missile can sink a carrier they simply become far to expensive target to present to an enemy force with the technology to sink them whenever they wish.

a reply to: hawkguy

The Starks CIWS was not functional.

There's a few tricks that can be used against anti - ship missiles. I used to be pretty good at some of them.

The weakness in the Chinese system is that it needs close in targeting info. That's what you kill.

a reply to: andy06shake

And yet, despite them being obsolete (again) more and more are being designed and built, despite hypersonic missiles.

There are currently a grand total of three hypersonic missile types in service, if you count the DF-21 as operational. There is something like one more currently even close.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Next 10-20 years though and that might change somewhat.

Think China alleged to have 10 new carriers in the pipeline.

Personally, i see hypersonic and railgun weapons systems doing to carrier fleets the same thing carriers done to the battlewagons of old, that being making them very open to attack from the air hence susceptible.

Then again for every offensive technology Humanities apt to design a defensive measure, how do we protect against such new weaponry through?

I imagine that's the ticket really.

a reply to: andy06shake

It might, but it takes at least that long to develop new technology. Hypersonics are one of the hardest techs we have to get right. Rail guns are turning out to be just as bad.

a reply to: Zaphod58

As our material science progresses so will our ability to make these new weapons systems do what they says on the tin though.

Do we have anything in our arsenals at present that can stop a hypersonic missile?

I mean in theory it could be shot down using another hypersonic missile system or even a projectile from railgun, but targeting such a fast-moving incoming missile and actually being able to respond and react in time to prevent impact seems to be beyond our ability to accomplish.