The installation of all three EMALS catapults have been finished, truck lauch tests soon?
The installation of all three EMALS catapults have been finished, truck lauch tests soon?
The installation of all three EMALS catapults have been finished, truck lauch tests soon?
Fuck off carriertard
Lol this is gonna kill at least 30 chinks
how many human skeletons do you think are lying below that ship right now
Can't wait for catapult launched Flankers, they'll finally be able to take off with full payload making them the heaviest and longest range carrier borne fighters since the F-14
the design of this plane is just fucking sick.
no idea about the rest what you said, may be, may be chink shill dont care
>the design of this plane is just fucking sick
it looks like a generic 3rd/4th generation fighter, wtf copium are you huffing chang
picrel is a 3/4 gen fighter.
j15 does not look anything like that
Implessive
not even a fucking welding mask kek
Safety squints are all a manly man needs.
US has crashed more fighters than China or even Russia can field
Su-33, China edition
If you like Flankers, you like the J-15
Personally, I think Flankers are ugly but thats just me
sexy
I will give credit where it's due: the Flanker and its derivatives are aesthetic as hell.
Kino
>the most X airplane since America already did that over half a centurey ago
Do you realize that the F-14 is closer in age to the adoption of the monoplane or building aircraft out of metal than it is to the present day? And that's even assuming the chinks can get it working AND at some point in the near future when we both know its gonna be another decade.
People really need to start developing some perspective on just how old (in the scope of manned flight) stuff like the Tomcat and Eagle actually are. Its fucking ancient. It'd be like someone bringing up Polish Winged Hussars during a discussion about modern IFV capabilities.
>First flight
>May 1918
Huh, cutting it pretty close but yeah. Its absolutely mind boggling that that thing is closer to the f14 than we are to the f14.
EMALS still doesn't effectively work on Ford (still breaks down on average after 600 sorties instead of 4000 required as on Nimitz). China will never get it working.
>still breaks down on average after 600 sorties instead of 4000 required as on Nimitz
surely you wouldnt just come on the internet and tell lies, right anon?
https://sgp.fas.org/crs/weapons/RS20643.pdf
>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.
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-105230.pdf
>A June 2022 GAO report states "The Navy also continues to struggle with the reliability of the electromagnetic aircraft launch system and advanced arresting gear needed to meet requirements to rapidly deploy aircraft." The report also indicates the Navy doesn't expect EMALS and AAG to reach reliability goals until the "2030's"
https://maritime-executive.com/article/report-carrier-uss-ford-s-electromagnetic-systems-still-need-work
>"The reliability of CVN 78 catapults, arresting gear, and jet blast deflectors (JBDs) continues to have an adverse effect on sortie generation and flight operations efficiency," noted DOT&E in an annual report released in mid-January. "The ongoing reliability problems with these critical subsystems remains the primary risk to the successful completion of CVN 78 [initial operational testing and evaluation]."
>These launch and recovery systems are at the core of Ford's capabilities. The Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System (EMALS) was designed to be an ultra-reliable replacement for the steam catapult, the Navy's proven system for sending fully-loaded fighter aircraft aloft. However, EMALS' reliability numbers are running "well below" expectations: in testing in March-June 2022, Ford's catapults achieved about 600 cycles between failures, a fraction of the 4,000-plus cycle design goal. The reliability numbers were even lower during another test round in September, the agency reported.
>The carrier's Advanced Arresting Gear (AAG) has similar challenges. The AAG is supposed to cycle 16,500 times between failures, but in recent testing it has broken down after roughly 450 cycles.
i knew youd pull this you disingenuous fuck
a "failure" is not the same as BREAKING DOWN. Taking 15 seconds too long to charge would be counted as a failure. Launching with 5% too much force would be counted as a failure. Having to delay the launch 15 seconds would be counted as a "failure." EMALS is a new system going through teething like any new system, but it isn't fucking "BREAKING DOWN" constantly. The very report you linked states 98% operational availability for EMALS
Except they're different, the Ford's EMALS is AC and the chink one is DC. We'll finally answer the AC vs DC debate once and for all.
This post is wrong on so many levels. Ford-class also uses DC technically, but that's irrelevant and has nothing to do with why China cannot succeed at making their version of EMALS work. It all comes down to sheer power generation and without nuclear power the Chinese are never going to sustain EMALS (if they can get it working) for extended periods of time. Simply put, they're going to have fewer launches because they're EMALS will take much longer to charge.
>they're EMALS
*their
You do realise that both conventional and nuclear powered carriers use steam turbines to generate power, the difference been endurance, right?
How about you go and have a look at Kittyhawk and Nimitz class specs and tell me which had more power again?
This post was written by someone with down syndrome.
EMALS in a proprietary naming scheme for a specific system made by General Atomics.
quattro is made by Audi for example, calling any 4wd system quattro that's not Audi made is really "clumsy" and would be considered capping or fakery.
odd ...
Is "Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch System" really something you can trademark? It's a straight up descriptor of what it is. You can trademark Xerox, but you can't do the same with "copying machine".
Took a damn long time TBQH. I guess no-one wants to risk any fail its like the old PLA navy.
I thought the third ramp was supposd to be slightly sideways to avoid smashing into the ship?
The gutter oil is sizzling
soon all will be one
Lets see how many launches they get before a breakdown. The US version was good for about 500.
30. My bet is 30, before the coils eat themselves from the heat generated by full-power launches with a DC system.
is it true that they have a flashing Liveleak logo instead of wave-off lights?
SNAP BACK TO REALITY
OPE, THERE GOES GRAVITY
Reminder that the Chinese navy cant even project power beyond the coast of Vietnam and that the US navy has 10x power projection of all the other combined navies in the world.