Chinese Aircraft Carrier Operations

[Hot Breath]

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.

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

"Australia and their new carrier"? What new carrier?

 

[VH]

You said:

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?

In several instances the PLAN uses a system of hierarchical command on the flight deck.to where a crewman acts as a 'supervisor' dispatching other colored shirts to tasks.These crew seem to be waiting for orders from this 'supervisor' before moving to perform a task. Such a rigid structure will fail in a dynamic high tempo deck environment

At the LSO station on an American carrier you will note a series of nets rigged for the LSO staff to dive into in case an aircraft crashes on the deck or otherwise gets out of shape during landing. These nets are lacking on the Liaoning. It appears that theLiaoning LSO staff will have to dive from the flight deck into the sea to save themselves in the event of an accident.

There are several other safety violations that are present on the Liaoning which are easily visible in the videos the PLAN release. These violations make the Liaoning unsafe..

You:

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?

You can start out slowly and still get it wrong. The PLAN appears to be neglecting the fundamentals in their attempts to achieve carrier competency

Me

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.

You

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.

The little they have shown is riddled with basic mistakes in carrier operations. Some things are small and might escape notice. But these mistakes will grow. Another example of PLAN failing to pay attention to the details is where even with the basic deck handling signals the colored shirts give on deck the PLAN has failed to understand that hand signals given above the waist are for the pilots of the aircraft to taxi or perform some action while hand signals performed below the waist are for other deck crew. There is no indication that the PLAN deck crew makes that distinction.

These basic mistakes grow with time and compound. Unlearning these errors will lead to trouble during high tempo operations.

 

[Hot Breath]

VH, you seem to be assuming that the PLAN would be using US Navy procedures and SOPs. Why? Why wouldn't they be developing their own, rather than merely aping the US Navy? Why assume that the USN's procedures are necessarily the best? That smacks rather of chauvinism to me.

 

[VH]

"Australia and their new carrier"? What new carrier?

This one. HMS Canberras. Two are planned. They will host F-35s

 

[VH]

VH, you seem to be assuming that the PLAN would be using US Navy procedures and SOPs. Why? Why wouldn't they be developing their own, rather than merely aping the US Navy? Why assume that the USN's procedures are necessarily the best? That smacks rather of chauvinism to me.

Have you been keeping up with PLAN developments for the Liaoning? China has copied everything from the USN colored shirt system to the Ouiji board for deck handling of aircraft. Don't ask me if USN procedures are the best. Ask the PLAN.

Here is the PLAN emulation of the Ouiji board and below is the USN original

 

[Deino]

Sorry, but on the one side You say they copy, they they copy badly and that the Liaoning is therefore unsafe to operate ... but tell us please what do they wrong, what is unsafe ?? ...

 

[VH]

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".

Maybe my answer was vague. But to be clear what I am saying is that if the PLAN is striving for American Navy competency they will have to train harder and go to sea more often. If they want to be an also-ran then they can continue on the path they are on

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.

And we both agree that it doesn't matter where you start it only matters where you finish. Hard realistic training builds competency.

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.

Yes we agree. But we both agree on the fact that you develop the skills by doing. Not by sitting at dockside.

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.

They are NOT emulating the Russians. The PLAN has chosen to emulate the US Navy. For example the Russians built this little bubble on the aft section for the LSO to sit in and help land aircraft. The PLAN cut that bubble out, plated the hole in the deck over and went with an American navy style LSO landing system. Check it for yourself. That speaks volumes.

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.

What it means is that the Americans do this loose dance on the deck, smoothly moving in and out of taxiing jets where the Chinese march to their aircraft and work stations in rigid formations. That contrast sums up the whole discussion. Again just look at these things for yourself and draw your own conclusions

 

[VH]

Sorry, but on the one side You say they copy, they they copy badly and that the Liaoning is therefore unsafe to operate ... but tell us please what do they wrong, what is unsafe ?? ...

What I said is that the PLAN has attempted to copy the American carrier system. Their problem is that they have missed certain key concepts.


The PLAN either needs to copy the system COMPLETELY or start out with a clean sheet of paper and develop their own way. This half stepping they are doing is hurting them.

 

[Blitzo]

Maybe my answer was vague. But to be clear what I am saying is that if the PLAN is striving for American Navy competency they will have to train harder and go to sea more often. If they want to be an also-ran then they can continue on the path they are on

You are extrapolating a line on a very very large graph from only the initial few points, which is simply not a logical way to do things.

And we both agree that it doesn't matter where you start it only matters where you finish. Hard realistic training builds competency.

But where you start determines how quickly and how safely you can finish. Hard training at the early stages will increase unnecessary risk and adversely effect safety.

Yes we agree. But we both agree on the fact that you develop the skills by doing. Not by sitting at dockside.

Well the last two sentences out of the three are redundant, because the PLAN are not at a stage where they are able to be constantly "doing". If in five years time they are still staying at dock as long as they are now, then you may have a case to argue. Until then, the fact that they are not going to sea often is perfectly reasonable

They are NOT emulating the Russians. The PLAN has chosen to emulate the US Navy. For example the Russians built this little bubble on the aft section for the LSO to sit in and help land aircraft. The PLAN cut that bubble out, plated the hole in the deck over and went with an American navy style LSO landing system. Check it for yourself. That speaks volumes.

I never said they were emulating the Russians.
What I said was that we don't know how far they are emulating the USN because the USN's carrier operations are more complex than simply what we see, whether they be coloured vests, or the LSO landing system that you mentioned.

What it means is that the Americans do this loose dance on the deck, smoothly moving in and out of taxiing jets where the Chinese march to their aircraft and work stations in rigid formations. That contrast sums up the whole discussion. Again just look at these things for yourself and draw your own conclusions

That contrast can easily be explained by the fact that oh, maybe the PLAN have only had their carrier for a year and a half and are barely learning how to operate their ship and their planes, let alone how to have already built a smooth and experienced procedure to taxi and maneuver planes??


It has nothing to do with BS cultural "rigidity".

 

[Blitzo]

What I said is that the PLAN has attempted to copy the American carrier system. Their problem is that they have missed certain key concepts.


The PLAN either needs to copy the system COMPLETELY or start out with a clean sheet of paper and develop their own way. This half stepping they are doing is hurting them.

And what you said is blatantly illogical.


You are reducing the American carrier operating procedure to a few visible points such as coloured vests, having safety equipment, or having their specific type of LSO system, while in reality it is far more complex. Not only hand signals, but below deck aircraft maintenance, management, cycling of aircraft frequencies, positioning of relevant machinery, etc.


And the PLAN doesn't need to copy the system "COMPLETELY," they can pick and choose which aspects of the USN's system may work out best for them, and discard some which may not work for them. But of course there will also be other differences that have nothing to do with whether something works well for them versus the USN, and that will simply be differences in equipment, via differences in funding. For instance, the lack of helmets in some instances, or the lack of fleetwide flash gear for surface combatants, etc.


Throwing out phrases like "the PLAN needs to copy the system COMPLETELY" is just setting yourself up to be proven wrong. For instance, if the PLAN copied 99.9% of USN operations, does that mean they will be hurting them? Give me a break.


A more revised position would be, the PLAN needs to copy parts of the USN system which works for them, and discard the ones which dont' work, while making sure to maintain safety standards to whatever degree is seen as necessary for them, with whatever resources they have available.

 

[VH]

I never said they were emulating the Russians.What I said was that we don't know how far they are emulating the USN because the USN's carrier operations are more complex than simply what we see, whether they be coloured vests, or the LSO landing system that you mentioned.

Okay I'll bite: If the PLAN is not emulating the Russians or the Americans then who ARE they emulating? And if they are just doing a surface job on this emulation thing then they are cheating themselves. They will have to go deep to get good.

That contrast can easily be explained by the fact that oh, maybe the PLAN have only had their carrier for a year and a half and are barely learning how to operate their ship and their planes, let alone how to have already built a smooth and experienced procedure to taxi and maneuver planes??

I think its more than that. The Chinese have a long history of scripted, rigid group type formations. This behavior as depicted below will not serve them well during carrier operations

 

[Deino]

Sorry, but show a row of stricly directed pilots walking in front of some aircraft and to take them as proof for being a "scripted, rigid group type formations" - even if this image could be simply (maybe it even is) from the hand-over-ceremonly of a new regiment to the PLAAF is plain "stupid". I'm sure You also can find similar images for the USAF or what ever.

The problem is that again You are only vague ... You say:

What I said is that the PLAN has attempted to copy the American carrier system. Their problem is that they have missed certain key concepts.

... but You still leave or miss to tell us what the PLN miss.

You take a few imges or the sparse information on what we have - sometimes even the lack of it - to draw conclusions that are simply not logical since these things can be found everywhere and even more You for Yourself are not in a strict line.

You say again they copy, they copy badly, they are too slow since they copy, but the should copy ....

To admit we simply don't have enough information to draw such conclusions. I agree that You only learn by doing and not by sitting in a harbour ... but do You know exactly what are they doing in that time, while the Liaoning is in the harbour ?? How long took the USN to develop all these procedures when the only had one carrier ? I do't know ??

To me it seems as if You are only nitpicking the things, which give a bad view, which show the lack of whatever ... that does not mean that I see it exactly the other way but for several things we simply lack information, other things You show as examples can be found also in other navies and even more the few images You have - like the one above - can easily be explained also in a completely different way ... but You always take the view You like.

Deino

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Pointless speculation from very little evidence from VH here. Topic locked.