China Launches Stealth Jet From Electromagnetic Catapult Aircraft Carrier (usni.org) 57
Longtime Slashdot reader hackingbear writes: The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy (PLAN) has demonstrated its ability to launch and recover aircraft from its first electromagnetic catapult-equipped aircraft carrier, the CNS Fujian. Official imagery released by the PLAN today confirms that the new J-35 naval stealth fighters, KJ-600 airborne early warning and control aircraft, and J-15T fighter jet are carrying out carrier trials. Ben Lewis, a co-founder of PLATracker, told USNI News that the test was a "significant milestone" for the Chinese military's carrier program. "Once operational, the PLAN will have the capacity to field fifth-generation stealth carrier aircraft, supported by fixed-wing carrier-based airborne early warning and command aircraft, across the first island chain and Western Pacific Ocean," Lewis said.
Electromagnetic catapults offer several advantages, not least the fact that they can be more finely tuned to very different aircraft types, including ones that are larger and slower (like the KJ-600), or which are smaller and lighter, such as smaller drones. In contrast to the U.S. Navy, which gathered decades of experience with steam-powered catapults, China opted for electromagnetic ones for its first catapult-equipped carrier. It's worth noting that the U.S. Navy's USS Gerald R. Ford was the first carrier ever to get an aircraft into the air using what is also referred to as an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS). However, it has not launched an F-35C so far, making the J-35 the first stealth jet to achieve this feat. Based on earlier predictions, the F-35C may not do the same for some years.
Electromagnetic catapults offer several advantages, not least the fact that they can be more finely tuned to very different aircraft types, including ones that are larger and slower (like the KJ-600), or which are smaller and lighter, such as smaller drones. In contrast to the U.S. Navy, which gathered decades of experience with steam-powered catapults, China opted for electromagnetic ones for its first catapult-equipped carrier. It's worth noting that the U.S. Navy's USS Gerald R. Ford was the first carrier ever to get an aircraft into the air using what is also referred to as an electromagnetic aircraft launch system (EMALS). However, it has not launched an F-35C so far, making the J-35 the first stealth jet to achieve this feat. Based on earlier predictions, the F-35C may not do the same for some years.
Can the F-35 do anything on time and budget? (Score:5, Funny)
"Based on earlier predictions, the F-35C may not do the same for some years".
Given the F-35's "trailer queen" reputation, it would have been nice if at least US ships could chuck it at an enemy like a big, expensive metal rock.
Re:Can the F-35 do anything on time and budget? (Score:4, Informative)
Oh, crap, and I burned all my mod points this morning.
The first two years the thing was officially "operational" the software to fire the weapons hadn't actually been written and tested yet.
Re:Can the F-35 do anything on time and budget? (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe. However, let's not become a Chinese propaganda rag. Israel used the F-35 it when striking back at Iran just recently. It worked, degrading, then completely bypassing Russian air defenses of the exact types Chinese air defenses are copied from. Currently the F-35 can operate from 10 aircraft carriers whilst the J-35 had to do its first proper launch test on an EMALS launcher because they only have one CATOBAR ship and that's the launcher it has.
America's problem with China is not today, nor with current military technology vs the rest of the world. The problem is that China's volume of production of ships currently is far ahead of what America is producing. In order to keep ahead or even to guarantee a balance in the Pacific, America is going to have to make friends with and maintain friendship with allies both there and in the rest of the world.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
What do you mean by "striking back"? Israel shot first, justifying its actions not on the basis of a putative Iranian strike but on the resumption of its nuclear programme.
Re: (Score:2)
The HQ-22 and HQ-22A are both thought to be superior to what Iran has, especially against stealth aircraft and ECM. Neither are copied from Russian equipment.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran's air defense system was taken offline by a remote exploit before the attack commenced, the supposed 'stealthiness' of the flying trailer park had nothing to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you have a link for that? I have seen that they were attacked by micro drones and anti tank missiles that Mossad set up, but no report of the air defenses being exploited. Given that it's happened once in history (when Israel attacked a reactor, if I remember correctly) this would be a mega-embarassment for Russia and I'd be surprised if people didn't crow about it big time.
Re: (Score:2)
America is going to have to make friends with and maintain friendship with allies both there and in the rest of the world
Don't worry! Our leader is at the UN right now, making friends and influencing people.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The U-2 and SR-71 fall into your 75-year time frame, so I'd say (a qualified) yes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Remember when the F-35 cost was supposed to be a fraction of the F-22's? Well, technically it's still a fraction, but barely.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The U-2 and SR-71 fall into your 75-year time frame, so I'd say (a qualified) yes
There's a much more recent claim by the B-21 [airforce-technology.com] although the final program costs vs. budget seem to be being kept secret.
The question, though, is about fair comparisons. The F-35 program was clearly over ambitious and should probably have been split into two or more separate planes. It developed many new technologies including a new engine, a new concept of software definable weapons systems,a new type of VTOL system and many many more. All the on budget ones seem to be further developments of pre-existing sys
Re: (Score:3)
I know it is easy to rag on the F-35, but in the last 75 years, has any high performance aircraft been "on time and on budget and on mission"?
The F-4 Phantom not only met expectations, but far exceeded them, to the point that the USAF adopted it (even though it hurt their pride being a Navy program). McDonnell started the design in 1955, the prototype rolled out in 1958, and it entered USN and USMC service in 1960. After it was bloody obvious that the F-4 was far better than anything the USAF had in it's so-called Century Series of fighters, USAF adopted it in 1962 and their initial version... the F-4C... entered frontline service in 1963. It wou
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://defensetech.org/2011/11... [defensetech.org]
and has been taking off from carriers with steam catapults for over a decade
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I recently read that the sales price is $105M but the lifetime maintenance cost is budgeted at $300M.
Re: Can the F-35 do anything on time and budget? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That's "fantastically expensive advanced carbon-fiber rock" you insensitive clod.
And the Eisenhower is itself a bit of a trailer queen, so they are a matched set.
Re: (Score:2)
ROFL! Thanks for that!
Just curious... (Score:3, Funny)
The Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy [...]
Was the pilot a member of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force?
Already obsolete? (Re:Just curious...) (Score:1)
Was the pilot a member of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force?
Indeed, I believe that is the official designation of the air wing attached to any PLAN aircraft carrier. I expect upon meeting any US aircraft they will momentarily become a member of the People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force Space Corps as they get blown above the Karman Line and then make an uncontrolled re-entry into the atmosphere.
While there will be people looking to see how these carrier launched aircraft perform against the F-22 or F-35 what I'd like to see is how they'd perform against a B-21 Ra
Re: (Score:2)
No, but he could have been a member of the Chinese's People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF). "People's Liberation Army" is the official name of the entirety of the Communist Chinese armed forces, so the Navy and the Air Force are both part of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I stand corrected. There is indeed a People's Liberation Army Navy Air Force (PLANAF).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, he was from <cue the eerie music> Spaaaaace Fooooorce.
But... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Funny. Of course you do realize that recently-commissioned US aircraft carriers now use electromagnetic launchers too now right? They can be more finely tuned compared to steam catapults.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
During his first alleged administration, he attempted to force the Navy into steam. He said at the time (my paraphrase but close): You need to be Einstein to understand those things, they should use steam. And then issued some sort of directive.
As I recall DJT did get a bit upset with the cost and delays of the EMALS on the new Ford carrier. He spoke several times on it in front of the press, and among civilian and military subject matter experts. I believe it was during a phone call with a captain of an aircraft carrier that DJT had his mind changed. DJT asked the captain about EMALS, using some variation on the "Einstein" comment while doing so. The captain made a short and very thoughtful reply that had apparently put an end to DJT speaking
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, we may eventually find out standing all day long near a functioning electromagnetic launch system has more health impacts for humans than a steam launch system.
Re: (Score:2)
As opposed to what, the massive magnets and magnetic field in the turbines that these ships use to generate power, and have done for more than 50 years?
Re:But... (Score:4, Informative)
Sorry but no. The electric catapult is nothing more than a linear electric motor. Think maglev trains. Or even EV motors. Besides that, we've been using induction motors for a hundred years. They operate in inducing eddy currents in a rotor using a changing magnetic field created by electric coils. Never mind being close to and underneath of electric transmission lines!
Re: (Score:2)
I read somewhere that steam is more reliable in the dirty , salty enviroment of a carrier deck but maybe that was back in the day and not now.
Re: But... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The Superman ride at Six Flags Magic Mountain, California ran for 28 years using a Linear Synchronous Motor (LSM) launch technology to propel ride vehicles at 100 Mph (160 kph). It closed last March partially due to difficulty getting parts originally made in 1996.
I don't remember customers or ride operators noticing any health problems from repeated use.
That dangerous electromagnetism! (Score:2)
Don't ride those electric trains or drive an EV or stand near a washing machine, and especially if you're near a 5G tower, have been vaccinated and are taking paracetamol!
Re: (Score:2)
But seriously, we may eventually find out standing all day long near a functioning electromagnetic launch system has more health impacts for humans than a steam launch system.
I wouldn't worry about the EMALS, it's the SPY-1 radar [wikipedia.org] on an Aegis cruiser that I'd worry about: 6-MW of focused radio power!
And, let's not forget, the EMALS in installed on a nuclear wessel [youtube.com].
Stealth (Score:2)
If it was so stealthy how do we know about it?
Re: (Score:2)
If it was so stealthy how do we know about it?
They had the retro-reflective stealth armor inactive during the sea trials. What's the point in having a fleet of scary stealth fighters if nobody knows they exist?
I realize that's something of a half-joking question so I'm giving a half-joking answer. The USA could have kept the B-21 Raider secret but that's not very useful as a deterrent to any potential aggressors that might consider picking a fight. If the world has no idea that the USA has a next generation stealth bomber in the works then that can
Re: (Score:2)
This ain't the early Cold War anymore. While there are certainly some super-secret weapons platforms out there, a lot of military capability is deliberately communicated and even put on display because it deters conflict.
When the Soviet Union fell the Pentagon's priorities shifted from "World War 3 against the USSR" to "wars against countries with marginally effective air forces." So when the B-2 came online, it served the Pentagon's mission better to show it off. "Look at our invisible bomber. You reall
Re: (Score:2)
to use its carriers to assert control of the Eastern Pacific.
I'm pretty sure you mean the Western Pacific unless you have a very different expectation of China's near-term ambitions than I do.
Re: (Score:2)
Well damn. Yes. Though, now that I stop to think about it, the Pacific is kind of crazy in that the Western Pacific is in the Eastern Hemisphere and the Eastern Pacific is in the Western Hemisphere.
And now I have a headache.
I'm Just Wondering (Score:2)
And thank you Siemens ... (Score:2)
... for delivering the maglev tech the chinese employed for this feature. (look for maglev siemens china)
Asterisk (Score:3)
Better articles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your TWZ was written in 2019, and is kind of out of date. The USNI article is recent and does talk about delays to the JFK (the next Ford-class carrier), but due to the aircraft elevators and arresting gear, not the launcher.
On the other hand, both those articles are "better" than the AI slop in TFS's last link.
Stealth is obsolete (Score:2)
With satellite based visual, and IR mode (if cloudy), stealth is obsolete. The US has enough low earth orbiting satellites ( called StarShield ) to provide multiple overlap coverage of the Earth's surface. Any large object (bigger than say a car) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour in the air will be easily identifiable.
Submarines that can carry drones and hypersonic missiles are the future.
Re: (Score:2)
With satellite based visual, and IR mode (if cloudy), stealth is obsolete. The US has enough low earth orbiting satellites ( called StarShield ) to provide multiple overlap coverage of the Earth's surface. Any large object (bigger than say a car) traveling at hundreds of miles per hour in the air will be easily identifiable.
Submarines that can carry drones and hypersonic missiles are the future.
And what happens when the enemy kills your satellites?
Now, I completely agree that stealth is overemphasized, but stealth is just part of a larger problem. The US military, particularly the Air Force, has a seriously bad tendency to rely on "magic bullet" solutions... a hyper-expensive technology that they think will win wars in a single blow.... instead of taking a layered approach that mixes new solutions with old. Which is important, because, war after war, we have to relearn the painful lesson that magi
Re: (Score:2)
With satellite based visual, and IR mode (if cloudy), stealth is obsolete.
Can I use those signals to lob an air-to-air missile at the target from 100+ miles away?