Chinese Aircraft Carrier Operations
- Thread starter VH
- Start date
- Status
VH said:
Probably Because they are still learning how to handle it, and mission planning and absorbing the lessons require returning to port?
Unless you are insinuating there is something technically deficient in the carrier or the PLAN's determination to field a carrier capability. That of course would be a stretch of the information from that single observation.
From where they are starting from, I think their at sea time is perfectly acceptable.
R
Radical
Guest
Blitzo said:
I'm not sure what you're taking offense to. It's obvious that the Chinese Navy still has much to learn about naval aviation, and despite their ambitions, they need to more work to catch up to the USN. Nothing wrong with the observation that the Chinese are currently inexperienced and have much to learn.
RadicalDisco said:
I agree completely, and that is basically what I wrote.
I'm just wondering why the question has to be asked in the first place considering this is a fact we are all aware of, unless the question is loaded in such a way to fish for a more specific answer which none of us can provide.
The phrasing of the question along with the past post history of the user in makes the otherwise innocuous query of a ship's duration of stay at port resound with unspoken undertones of questions about crew proficiency, technical functioning of equipment, and even whether the carrier is only going to sea for vanity and propaganda's sake and that the PLAN are not serious about developing naval aviation.
But then again, maybe I am reading too much into this and VH can clarify that he meant nothing of that sort and the question merely reflected his lack of instinct about how fast the PLAN could and should be going out to sea with their new carrier.
R
Radical
Guest
Deino said:Hmmm ... not really sure, we know the prototypes 551-556 + the J-15S prototype and now confirmed (rep.) the serials numbered 100-105.
By the way ... the PLANAF goes Topgun-style ...
http://p.you.video.sina.com.cn/swf/quotePlayer20140422_V4_4_42_25.swf?autoPlay=1&actlogActive=1&as=1&vid=131684820&pid=478&tj=1&uid=1499104401&tokenURL=http%3A%2F%2Fyou.video.sina.com.cn%2Fapi%2FsinawebApi%2Foutplayrefer.php%2Fvid%3D131684820_478_1499104401_1_P0O1HyVpBjTK%2Bl1lHz2stqlF%2B6xCpv2xhGuwslulJQpdVQ2YJMXNb9wE4S%2FeBMdA8XoLHcwydP0n0RUpYKhY%2Fs.swf&tHostName=www.sinodefenceforum.com
Deino
What the hell is up with those workout scenes? And that random sword drawing? And that obvious CGI? And soundtrack from the Hobbit trailer ;D
Cheesy, to say the least.
Do we know if the upcoming Chinese carrier will employ catapults? Or are they willing to put up with the payload limitations of ski-jumping?
Blitzo said:
I don't know what the problem is but you will agree that you learn by doing. And you have to sail the ship to understand how to handle the ship. The PLAN should understand that you gain experience by being at sea.
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]If you use the USN as the yardstick you can plainly see how much training is needed to maintain proficiency in carrier operations. This involves hours of flight operations AT SEA under all types of conditions. This also includes operations at night and in adverse weather. This results in carrier operations performing like a well oiled machine. [/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]And even then, the USN experiences its share of accidents and malfunctions.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Since the main purpose of the carrier, any carrier, is to operate aviation at sea it is unclear how China can gain proficiency in these skills sitting at dock side. Carrier operations are a perishable skill and must be performed relentlessly to maintain the edge. Exhibit one is the tempo of American and French carrier operations and training.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]It seems that the Chinese are taking a relaxed stance at establishing proficiency in operating their carrier. This stance stands in stark contrast to the Chinese statements issued when the Liaoning first went to sea to where China claimed that they were going to fast track getting up to speed with their carrier.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]And you are aware that other voices have raised the very same questions I raise concerning China's snail pace toward gaining proficiency in carrier operations. These include many Chinese commentators. So I am not alone in trying to understand this mystery.
[/font]
VH said:
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif][/size]Good, now we are getting somewhere.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]I don't think they are taking a relaxed stance at all. Considering where the PLAN are starting trim I.e.: zero, I think their time spent at sea is perfectly acceptable. I haven't been keep track of their more recent maneuvers, but I remember that a year or so ago they spent about 1/3 of their time at sea. They're not going to start spending 2/3rds of their time out at sea just a year or so after commissioning, especially not for a ship as large and complex and unprecedented for the PLAN as this.[/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]And china never claimed they were going to fast track getting up to speed with their carrier, certainly not with a timeline of any sort.[size=78%][/font]
This is not a mystery.
They are new at naval aviation, hell, they are new at even operating the most basic dimensions of a carrier. Of course they're going to have to master every single fundamental and become proficient in it rather than plough on ahead without a solid base. It would be irresponsible and dangerous if they did so.
So overall, I am surprised that you seem to be surprised at their amount of time spent at sea.
VH said:
And you should understand that operating a new, large, and complex ship of a class they have never broached before with no foreign assistance means they have to be cautious and thorough, that is the problem.
Experience means nothing if you don't have the time back on land to digest, process, and reform your practice.
If you expected the liaoning would be doing USN levels of at sea maneuvers a year and a half after its commissioning then you must have had your expectations heavily hyped.
I am not the only one surprised. It seems that many commentators, including many Chinese sources have questioned the slow pace of Chinese carrier development. You yourself know this as a fact.
It appears that the Chinese have underestimated the complexity of carrier operations. The initial estimates of the PLAN having three carrier battle groups by 2025 will never happen at this rate of progress.
To be sure the Chinese seem to be following the model of the Russian navy and the slow pace of the Russian carrier program. In any event I am not mad at the PLAN. They are free to move at whatever rate of development they are comfortable with.
It appears that the Chinese have underestimated the complexity of carrier operations. The initial estimates of the PLAN having three carrier battle groups by 2025 will never happen at this rate of progress.
To be sure the Chinese seem to be following the model of the Russian navy and the slow pace of the Russian carrier program. In any event I am not mad at the PLAN. They are free to move at whatever rate of development they are comfortable with.
VH said:
The only chinese commentators who have questioned the slow pace of carrier development are rabid fanboys who don't know the difference between an SSN and an SSBN.
The fact that you are using poor sources as a means of trying to illustrate either PLAN incompetence or PLAN underestimating the complexity of carrier operations only shows that you are more interested in looking for a straw man.
Actually china hasn't said anything about having three carrier battle groups by 2025, not the government, not the PLAN. So it isn't the chinese overestimating the complexity of carrier operations but rather everyone else, and evidently you, listening to poor sources.
This line basically seals the deal for me that you have no idea what you are talking about.
There is no "Russian navy model" for developing carrier operations, nor is there a "pace" which is symbolic of the Russian navy in their operating of naval aviation.
The slow pace of Russian carrier ops over the last two to three decades since the twilight of the Cold War has been a result of poor funding of the Russian navy.
The chinese navy today is a completely different beast to the Russian navy of the last few decades. More importantly, even if a rate of carrier operations progress is somehow indicative of a particular navy's "model" of developing carrier aviation, it would only be fair to judge the chinese navy after two or three decades since they commissioned liaoning rather than only judging them barely two years after they commissioned it.
So basically, what I'm saying is:
-neither the PLAN nor the CMC has underestimated the complexity of carrier operations, because they've actually never given a timeline or projection about when liaoning would be ready.in fact, all the official military and navy universities have been very conservative about when liaoning would be operational, showing that they clearly do understand and have respect for what they are preparing to undertake. The only people saying the PLAN would have three carriers by 2025 or whatever are fanboys and speculation on forums that lack credibility and are working off leaks. If you use that as a basis for arguing the PLAN underestimated carrier operations then you are either ignorant about who is credible at best, or worst, you are throwing logic out of the window to try and take a cheap shot at the PLANs competency and common sense.
-if you do want to judge how "fast" the PLAN is doing their carrier ops, come back in ten years time once we have something to measure. Or better yet, twenty or thirty years, if you want to compare with other navies who have had decades or even a century to perfect the art. Otherwise, if you think that one year after commissioning their first aircraft carrier the PLAN should be doing six month long deployments with a full airwing, then it is your expectations that need to be revised.
R
Radical
Guest
Okay, can we stop with the name calling and hostile tone?
To anyone familiar with the Chinese Navy, do we have any idea whether the upcoming carriers will use catapults or angled ramps?
To anyone familiar with the Chinese Navy, do we have any idea whether the upcoming carriers will use catapults or angled ramps?
RadicalDisco said:
At present it sounds like the immediate follow up to liaoning will be STOBAR, which may be followed by a CATOBAR flattop, both built at different shipyards. There was speculation that the PLAN might be skipping from steam catapults to EMALS for their CATOBAR carrier, but now the situation seems to have changed and they will go with steam after all.
There have been rumours for years that the first indigenous carrier was under construction, with nothing eventuating. I personally think rumours of PLAN carrier production have become a bit of a bad joke, and will believe it once the modules fit together to form a nice flight deck.
If anything, I'd say PLAN carrier developments have rather dropped off the radar of late.
There is no direct proof that the Chinese are building two carriers at two different yards. No satellite photos, leaked photos or anything. Even you say that these are just rumors without foundation. What I do agree with you about is that Chinese navy carrier development has as you have put it now "dropped off the radar"
The question hanging in the air is why? Do you have a theory as to why the Chinese have suddenly gone quiet? Could this have something to do with the complexity of the task? Could something have happened during a cruise that has caused the PLAN to go back to the drawing board?
For sure the PLAN has invested a considerable amount of money and time in a carrier development program. Yet now this land based carrier trainer China built at Wuhan appears to be going unused and the PLAN has starting building what appears to be a cruiser mock up for evaluation.
What are your views? At this point any speculation is fair game.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,517
- Reaction score
- 3,072
To admit - an I'm sure Blitzo can explain it later much better than me - IMO its a matter of will to tell ... and the Chinese were only willing to tell "look here we are, we have a carrier now a nd we are practicing" ... and now they are doing just this: they practice and they gain experience at their own pre-set pace and what this pace is they do not tell us.
It's similar to the Y-20: there was a much-hyped maiden flight ... a few more images later of the painted aircraft and about one year later the second aircraft, but the lack of images does not mean there is no testing or even progress. I'm also sure they won't tell us - at least not yet - about problems or setbacks ... and they will tell more when they think the time is right.
I'm almost sure some of these guys setting the schedules are listening to us and were joking about all the fuss some make about this and that or even more the lack of this and that. But that's - at least for me - the interesting part of that story !
Hope that helps a bit ... at least from my side.
Deino
It's similar to the Y-20: there was a much-hyped maiden flight ... a few more images later of the painted aircraft and about one year later the second aircraft, but the lack of images does not mean there is no testing or even progress. I'm also sure they won't tell us - at least not yet - about problems or setbacks ... and they will tell more when they think the time is right.
I'm almost sure some of these guys setting the schedules are listening to us and were joking about all the fuss some make about this and that or even more the lack of this and that. But that's - at least for me - the interesting part of that story !
Hope that helps a bit ... at least from my side.
Deino
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,517
- Reaction score
- 3,072
quellish said:
Be Your pardon ... but is this a serious question or a joke ???
Why should each and every testflight of a secret project at a secret base be photographed and documented on public internet forums ? ... so it must be a joke !
Deino
Pretty certain it was a sarcastic comment.
VH said:
Actually, I said they were rumours and I made a point to say that the situation was very fluid.
Yes, exactly, I said they were rumours and I never claimed it was gospel
However, my answer is what the current state of perceived PLAN carrier development is at. We don't have anything solid from the PLAN on their carrier plans as always, so we only have rumours, leaks, and the occasional semi official half revelation to go on to draw a picture, and this is the picture we have.
The big reason I think, is because liaoning's existence has become part of common discourse now. In the years preceding liaoning's commissioning people were more excited, more hyped. Now that it has arrived, many of the internet fanboys are becoming more realistic about it.
Btw, I want to point out it isn't the "chinese" that have suddenly gone quiet, I.e.: it isn't the government of the navy that have gone quiet. I anything they have become a little louder WRT carrier developments compared to five years ago. But internet boards and the typical sources for rumours have definitely become a little quieter.
Whether that is because the carrier situation has changed due to applying liaoning's lessons, or whether because there is a larger strategic shift from more power projecting tools like carriers to more localised weapons (or a whole heap of other options) is a bigger question
I don't think "any" speculation is fair game, after all we can only make so many inferences from what little we know, and the more specific we speculate the more unlikely said speculation is true.
That is why I've been critical of some of your conclusions in the last couple of posts, because many of your extrapolations are based on not very much of hard evidence.
- Joined
- 6 August 2007
- Messages
- 2,991
- Reaction score
- 2,236
Deino said:
It was. That said, there ARE often many more photos of the public-facing flight tests of these aircraft that do not make it onto the various forums. When I was looking at J-20 2001 around the time of it's first flight I was able to locate a number of (to me- crap images but rich with meta data) high quality digital photos from perspectives not available elsewhere at the time. I was very surprised that I was able to get the data I did at the time. Unfortunately this was not a capability I maintained.
I had expected there to be much more control over the exposure of the aircraft (even if it was subtle).
Deino said:
Answer: Because there are various means, non Chinese means, to observe Chinese developments and progress. Anything that rolls out of a hanger in China is immediately scrutinized by a thousand eyes eager for any scrap of information that can be gleaned. Today there is a vast constellation of private satellites that make a living watching China and the world.
A couple of decades ago China might have been able to keep a secret, but today nothing remains secret for long
Blitzo said:
Justify to whom? We are here expressing our opinions. And all we know for sure is that the Chinese carrier program seems to have gone into remission. The reasons for this phase of stagnation is a question of debate. That about sums it up.
VH said:
Justify to whom? How about to logic and common sense?
Statements [paraphrased] like "china is following the Russian model," or "the PLAN have underestimated the complexity of carrier operations" or "the chinese will not have 3 CVBGs by 2025 as they claimed," are either based on faulty logic, false premises, or is blatantly untrue in the last case. The fact that you hadn't addressed or even acknowledged my rebuttals to those claims in my reply 137 makes it sound like you are either uninterested in discussing comparing notes at best, or you are avoiding statements that challenge your preconceived notions and generalisations at worst.
In fact I've made a number of similar responses to you over the last few months and you almost always end up ignoring it, yet coming back a while later with a variation of your similar previously unchanged opinion. I'm not interested in changing your opinion or anything, but the point of these kind of forums are to exchange information and look at them critically.
---
And no, we do not know that that chinese carrier program has gone into remission.
What we know is that liaoning has returned to dry dock for scheduled maintenance, and that rumours of future chinese carrier development have decreased in rate. Nor do we know what kind of land based analysis of training, report filing, and tweaks in organisational structure are occurring, but chances are it will be significant given it would be logical for them to squeeze as much data from as few sea going excursions as possible to make future exercises and training safer, instead of constantly going out to sea in the early stages and not absorbing any of the lessons. Once they have a solid bedrock of operating procedures to go off they can start going out to sea more often to give the crew real experience.
[/size]What I'm saying is that perceived stagnation does not equal stagnation.
We had little to no proof prior to 2011 that china was developing a stealth fighter, if I went by your logic they had no stealth fighter program prior to 2011.
Blitzo said:
Your own words show that you agree with my views. You claim that rumors of future of Chinese carrier development have decreased in rate. We are in agreement about that fact. Even you realize that China has gone to sea very few times. Again on this I agree. I say that they haven't sailed enough. You say otherwise,
The bottom line in all this is I believe, based upon my experience and from observing the practices of other carrier operating navies that there is no substitute for going to sea and conducting carrier operations. The definition of carrier operations is aviation at sea.
Not at dock side nor training on land. The rubber meets the road when that carrier is sailing with a bone in her teeth launching and recovering aircraft.
And you know what I say is true. All across the Internet people with real carrier experience have been saying the very same thing. They have even addressed it to you directly.
Carriers are built to sail and conduct flight operations. Flight operations from that tiny crowded deck is a thing of beauty. And to get it right, to do that dance on the deck, you have to practice, practice, practice. At sea.
China claims they want to become a carrier operating navy. They have studied as much as possible American carrier practices. They have copied everything from color coded deck crews to the ouija board to organize deck operations. What they haven't copied is the intensity of American flight operations.
You attribute this to China being cautious and attempting to go slow. I disagree with your assessment. However that's where we leave it. Your opinion and mine.
VH said:
Agreed. But whether frequency or rate of rumours are indicative of what work is currently being undertaken is another quesiton.
Compared to other nations that have operated carriers for decades, yes. And for where they are right now that is perfectly reasonable.
Considering they are only one and a half years in after commissioning their first ever aircraft carrier and they have had little to no foreign help, I think their current rate is perfectly acceptable. Not to mention this is a new carrier as well. So not only is the ship new, but the ship type is new as well.
I agree completely. Of course going out to sea is the best way to garner experience, and nothing can substitute it. That's why the PLAN (and PLA as a whole) are modernizing their exercises to be more realistic, and why the PLAN are doing more ocean going exercises and keeping a presence at Aden.
But what I disagree with is whether the PLAN should be blindly going to gain "experience" at this stage when they've only just been handed the keys to this new, awesomely complicated toy. It's like giving an eighteen year old keys to an F1 car and expecting him to start doing full speed laps without having talked to his team, his pit crew, without having how to operate his radio, how to even start the freaking engine, what gauges do what, and so on.
Carrier operations includes having the infrastructure, the personnel, the equipment, the operations theory, the doctrine, all to allow the ability to do aviation at sea. If you think any navy can simply put a flat top out to sea and start launching and arresting fighters without having done years of early test work to assess their own doctrine, their procedures, and reduce risk, then I have a carrier to sell you.
If we want to play semantics, then by your definition the Chinese are not doing carrier operations. But if we take a more holistic and organizational view of what allows aviation at sea to occur, then they are probably working their butts off. At this stage it makes no sense for them to be constantly going out to sea. They need to learn how they want to operate their carrier, how to organize their crew, how to base their carrier and how to supply it. I'm sure I don't need to preach to you about how complex a carrier is. They've gone on enough excursions by now to probably have enough data and information and reports for the brass to develop a better understanding for both how they want to operate Liaoning, and how they want to operate future carriers. Once they have a foundation to work from and once they've finished testing the operational aspects of Liaoning, only then, does it make sense to start grinding rubber every day and operating the ship to give the crew experience.
In many ways the Liaoning at this stage is indeed still a test ship.
I agree that experience is best gained at sea.
What you're missing is that going out to sea without having a foundation on knowing why you want to go out to sea is pointless.
Let's do a thought experiment. Let's give a navy that has never had hands on experience with any form of submarine an Ohio class SSBN. Would you expect them to go out to sea immediately and start doing multi month long patrol exercises? or would it be more logical for them to take the submarine and crew through its paces to understand how the submarine works, what doctrine may work best, what procedures may be most efficient, and test the individual subsystems, from weapons to sensors? Not to mention work out the logistics of supporting such a vessel, and to have the time to allow the initial crew to file reports and help create a variety of manuals and procedures for standardized development and reference?
On both here and on other forums I have always said that nothing can substitute for at sea experience, so don't try to frame me as someone that has said otherwise.
What I disagree with you at is whether it is reasonable to expect for them at this stage to go blindly plowing into constant exercises at sea.
And to be able to practice, practice, practice, they need to have a crew that knows how to operate their ship, a navy that has the logistics to support it, the human knowledge of how they want to operate it. They're still in an early stage where they need to determine "how" they want to practice, practice, practice at sea. If they simply go out there without having done evaluations to even have a semblance of doctrine or basic operating procedures to work out the kinks of both the ship and the crew then they would be endangering the lives of their sailors as well as the ship itself.
It is good that they are not trying to go out to sea as often as the USN at this stage, because if they do, they probalby won't know what they're doing and may end up endangering crew and ship.
Only once they've gone to sea a few times and stayed on land to discuss and analyze their data and information can they have a basis to even work out a real procedure to do things, otherwise stupidly going out to sea without that will make them effective headless chickens.
So you are saying that you think it is a reasonable position for you to hold, that barely a year and a half after commissioning their first ever aircraft carrier, and without foreign help, that you expect them to be going out to sea with duration and frequency which other navies that have operated carriers for decades have done?
Remember what I said about logic and common sense?
--
But I do appreciate the fact that you are able to respond to my previous post and at least have this discussion. I look forward to seeing your response to this post.
I believe your statement as to how long the PLAN has been doing carrier work-ups is inaccurate on a couple of points:
- Since 1985, China has acquired four retired aircraft carriers for study. So that means that they have had several carriers to use to develop deck procedures.
]- In fact the Australian ]HMAS Melbourne acquired in 1985 and its steam cats are said to form the basis for PLAN cat development.
- The PLAN has operated their landbased carrier at the military research facility in Wuhan for a number of years.
- China has sought and did receive foreign help in carrier operations from Brazil. This help must be factored into the progress China is making.
What I am saying is that the Chinese have had much time to develop carrier procedures for the Liaong. The ship we see sailing today stands on the shoulders of much carrier experience China has gathered for several decades.
Viewed in this light I expected more from the PLAN.
And looking to the future I ask you this question: Is this slow pace of carrier development we have seen to date what we can expect for the future of the Chinese carrier program?
VH said:
They have had several carriers to look at. But they didn't have anyone to show them, no manuals, no nothing apart from the husks of a few old carriers and the then Varyag which was barely even finished. They would've been able to start brainstorming ideas from those carriers, yes, but being able to develop deck procedures without a dedicated crew on a working fully functional carrier? Impossible.
It was a rather old and feeble catapult, not the same kind used on USN carriers. It would've provided a nice boost to their steam cat programme, though, yes.
The brazilians aren't exactly known for fielding a very effective carrier, more importantly, while they might be able to provide hints, the PLAN is still working from square one with regards to Liaoning given it is a compltely different beast to Sao Paulo.
And I disagree.
The CHinese have had many years to develop some prerequisite hints for how they might want to start developing carrier procedures. But to actually implement and test them out at first, at sea, was yet to be done.
More importantly, having a few carriers and some brazilian advisors (if that exchange did occur) does not give the PLAN reliable first hand knowledge about the logistics, the operations theory, the doctrine, and all the infinite procedures and standards needed for operating the carrier they have. What knowledge they already did have maybe allowed them to start at square one rather than square zero, but this is on the scale of square zero to square one hundred, with one hundred being a state where they are able to fully commit to reliably go out to sea and do extensive exercises for experience.
I think you are vastly overestimating the degree to which knowledge about operating a carrier can be garnered by without doing it on a real ship, as well as simultaneously underestimating the difficulty for a new navy to operate a carrier from virtually no first hand experience.
If you mean for the next two or three years, then chances are, they will still have to learn the ropes of Liaoning and how they want to operate future carriers before actually doing long exercises and getting good experience for their crew (not to mention the rest of their fleet).
If you mean for the next five to ten years in terms of construction, then I don't know. I expect they will transpose much of their lessons onto their first indigenous carriers and potentially have a crew ready for their indigenous carriers faster than they did for Liaoning. But that also depends on how well they design and build the ship. While Chinese naval shipbuilding is very competent, they will still be building their first carrier from the ground up. If their first carrier is CATOBAR then maybe it will take them longer to get it right.
But if the economic trend continues as it is, I will quite confidently say that in thirty years time the PLAN will have gone much further in their carrier programme than the Russians have in their carrier ambitions in the last thirty years to now.
However they won't be doing USN speeds of cutting steel/launch/commissioning/exercises any time soon. And that is to be expected
And there is the rub: In thirty years carriers will be so advanced in terms of designs and procedures, that the inexperienced Chinese will never be able to close the gap. It is reasonable to guess that several regional competitors will have carriers afloat that will challenge China in the crowded waters of Asia. China will have more than the USN to worry about.
VH said:
I think you are getting a little bit excited.
Consider how far carriers have advanced in the last thirty years. The core technologies remain the same, even in the USN. Steam catapults still dominate, the mechanics of launch and recovery haven't changed, aircraft still have wings, they still use tailhooks.
Yes, the upcoming Ford class are pioneering some new technologies such as EMALS, new reactors, greater automation, and of course, newer planes along with UAVs, however these are not "paradigm shifts" in operating carriers but more qualitative and continuous improvements. It is the individual subsystems within a carrier that are improving, but the nature that they interact is not drastically changing.
The PLAN needs to know how to manage the latter, however the country's MIC has the ability to develop a variety of the systems in the former category, whether they be radars, fighters, munitions, computerized management systems, automation, etc. There was a series of posts on the SDF carrier thread a while ago featuring articles that made reference to advancements in its EMALS programme.
You also make the assumption that the leading edge of capability is advancing faster than the Chinese are catching up. In many domains, from aerospace to naval, that is being proven untrue. If anything their the rate to which their capabilities are catching up is increasing. That's not surprising , considering both how much cash the PRC is putting into these vital technological industries as well as investing into longer term capabilities. Also, the nature of technological catch up means it is typically easier to develop and do what others have done after they've already done it.
Note, I'm not going to claim China will be building EMALS touting supercarriers in five years time, but I am saying that any differentials in technology will probably be more short lived than you may think -- assuming economic projections remain constant.
Looking at "catching up" in capabilities, I would argue other vessels such as surface combatants have made a greater relative leap in the last thirty years than carriers, through the development of VLS, LACMs, reliable PAR systems, CeC, and integrated combat systems, and the PLAN seems to have rapidly caught up in that regard, much of which was made in the last decade.
That just goes to show that technological advancement doesn't necessarily translate to an increase in difficulty to "catch up," especially if one has observed what other navies have tried and make the choice to leapfrog some dead end developmental stages to only focus on the essential precursor technologies.
---
And I don't see how other nation's potential carrier development is relevant to the PLAN.
I thought we were discussing how far and how fast the PLAN will grow its carrier programme, not that of its neighbours.
But to address this point: in the short to medium term, I can only see Japan and South Korea potentially operating F-35Bs off their LHA/LHDs. A true fixed wing carrier is some ways off yet. More importantly, PLAN carriers are not aimed at Japan or South Korea, or even the US in the western pacific, so comparisons between USN carrier capability and PLAN carrier capability is really just an interesting academic question rather than a practical one.
R
Radical
Guest
VH said:
Well what do you attribute it to then?
Deino said:
Not that it matters, because the PLANAF is known to possess all parts of the puzzle (probes and buddy refueling pods both seen on the J-15 previously), but I smell photoshop. I'm pretty sure at least the background is not original, whatever else was done.
Radical said:
I would say alot has to do with how China carries out developments. Its that old innovation thing that seems to plague China. Another thing is this notion of tribal knowledge in carrier operations. Are you familiar with the concept of tribal knowledge?
" Tribal knowledge is any information that is known within a tribe but often unknown outside of it. A tribe may be a group or subgroup of people that share a common knowledge."
Carrier operations as practiced by the USN are a product of American culture. It is unique. China will have to develop its own model of carrier operations based on Chinese concepts. To date China has been trying to adapt American procedures to Chinese culture. The Americans are loose where the Chinese are tight. American concepts don't directly translate into how the PLAN does business.
It will take time for China to sort things out for themselves.
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Messages
- 3,517
- Reaction score
- 3,072
But to admit especially with Your last statement in mind - which I do not agree with - I even less undestand why You expect more or greater progress from the CHinese in this regard. If they are not familiar with this "tribal knowledge" as You call it it is even more understandable that it will take time to develop an own sense of "tribal knowledge" ... by the way in comparison to the US it seems that in fact no other nation has so far developed something like that, not the Indians, not the Russians, not Brazil and probably not even the UK since they have their own and very different way of handling carrier aviation. Maybe at best the French ... but again like I already said, the CHinese need their time to explore, to develop and so on ... and they are not in a rush - esp. not by any of our expectatiuons - to proceed faster than theay want on their own.
But since they don't tell - at least not officially - what they plan to archive until what date it is only up to us to be excited, surprised, disappointed or even annoyed by the pace they show.
What You think or expect is therefore only Your expectation or opinion but surely not a bar to measure the progress.
Just my two cents.
Deino
But since they don't tell - at least not officially - what they plan to archive until what date it is only up to us to be excited, surprised, disappointed or even annoyed by the pace they show.
What You think or expect is therefore only Your expectation or opinion but surely not a bar to measure the progress.
Just my two cents.
Deino
Blitzo said:
You forgot to mention the Indians with their new carrier and one building. Also do not forget the Australians and their new carrier. China will soon have its hands full with these rising regional carrier forces
Deino said:
The Chinese are trying hard to emulate the American system of carrier operations. However when you examine even the sparse information they reveal with the videos they release you can see that they are getting off on the wrong foot. Lapses in safety procedures are clearly visible. There are equipment violations. There are many things that the PLAN will have to unlearn if they wish to master high tempo carrier operations in a reasonable time
What I am saying is that many of the early lessons the PLAN is building on in developing their carrier procedures are wrong and will at some point return to bite the PLAN in the behind.
It should be remembered that carrier operations are inherently dangerous and if you start out cutting corners you will sooner or later pay a severe price. The PLAN is skipping steps that will return to haunt them.
My advice to the PLAN would be that if you are going to copy the USN then do it to the letter. It is too early for the PLAN to be improvising.
VH said:
They haven't learned anything yet. "Lapses" in safety procedures, such as some deck crew not wearing helmets, are potential safety hazards, yes, but you are making the mistake of generalizing incidences such as that onto a ship or even navy wide incompetency on domains which may not be fully relevant.
It's also worth noting that deck crews of other ships of other, poorer, navies often lack various protective gear as well.
Hell, I don't think the PLAN even has fleet wide flash gear for their crew yet. But that is reflective of prioritizing various aspects of capability due to limited funds rather than any inherent lapse safety procedures.
Because you are an expert at carrier operations? How about you be a little more specific? What early lessons are the PLAN supposedly building wrongly? Which do you think may bite them in the behind?
What steps are they skipping? I thought you said the PLAN was doing carrier operations too slowly? So how they can be skipping steps if they are moving too slowly?
How the hell are they improvising? They are not. We've seen next to nothing to indicate how they plan to operate carriers, and they have a half green deck crew that probably don't even have a real operating manual to work from.
If anything, it is far too early for you to make these kind of big calls.
VH said:
This is an answer that manages to be both vague in terms of answering the question and specific in displaying your belief in a stereotype.
You originally said China has not reached USN levels of carrier operations intensity. And your answer is that it has to do with how China "carries out developments," and a plague of "old innovation thing".
My answer OTOH, is that China is not doing intense levels of carrier operations or even training at this stage because they've only had a carrier for a year and a half and have no background knowledge in how to operate carriers or indeed, even any manuals to work from, therefore it makes no sense to even try accelerating their pace of carrier ops.
Which answer do you think is more likely to be true, which makes more sense?
So what you are saying is that you agree with me that it is logical for China to be developing its carrier aviation relatively slowly at this stage, because like you said, China doesn't have any background in carrier ops, and the PLAN is still testing the waters.
Well it's good that we finally agree on this.
I think however you should take a less dramatic view on China "emulating" American procedures. At this stage all that we see is the "same" are the very superficial aspects -- having coloured vests, having an ouija board, having specific individuals observing landings each carrying a wave off button, and having "shooters". USN carrier operations are not simply those few aspects, and it is incorrect to say that the PLAN is emulating every USN behaviour, only that they are using some of the most easily seen USN habits.
Furthermore, reducing something as complex as developing a carrier capability with cultural stereotypes is not adding anything to the conversation. "Chinese is tight, American is loose" -- what does that even mean?? Are you talking about command and control/organization?
Because once again, that is a very big stereotype, and I don't think either of us can say whether having a tighter chain of command is a good thing for developing a naval aviation capability, either at the overall naval level or the smaller, crew level.
- Status
Similar threads
-
-
-
-
-
Pentagon: U.S. Won’t Send Carrier to Mainland China This Year (2015)- Started by Triton
- Replies: 2