I would liken it to riding a motorcycle as an analogy. Let me explain

Some motorcycle experiences are common to the whole event and can be applied across all models, and some experiences can only be gained by riding the particular model.

Common experiences which can be applied across all models such as:-

– Is the dark patch I see up the road a pothole, water, oil or just a simply a shadow?

When one is new to the motorcycle experience one tends not to notice such things till one of these actually causes one to have an accident or a near accident. The motorcycle riding experience forces one to see the road differently than if one is riding a car. After ones first spill or near accident one tends to be more cautious, and avoid all the dark patches. Sometime later as one gains experience handling the motorcycle and there is a general increase in ones confidence, one will evaluate everything including the surrounding environment and act accordingly. At that time handling the dark patches on the road will be done almost automatically as they occur. One will ride faster and cut corners when neccessary because one knows what ones machine and one can handle. Where the machines breaking points are, and how hard one can push oneself.

Experiences which can be gained by only by riding a particular model such as:-

– How are the gears arranged? How tight is the clutch? What is the braking distance, and how quickly can the machine come to rest? Does the machine drift to the left or right when applying emergency brakes? How far can I push it on reserve fuel? How comfortable are the seats? What is the best riding position for this machine? What is the redline? What is needed to carry out on-the-go repairs to get me home?

For someone who has ridden all types of motorcycle for 50 years, it is easier to adapt to a new machine because that someone can call on previous experience. A newbie has to adapt to both the machine and the road (environment) simultaneously. Hence you will always find a newbie will be slower and less agile than the experienced motorcycle rider.

Similarly when operating a carrier, the IN has more “road experience” with varied machines. They can apply such “road experiences” to newer types of carriers on-the-go. For instance:-

Do these particular sea conditions mean it can launch and recover its aircraft safely and in a timely manner? Are the local conditions advantageous to avoid a fight or seek it? These are examples of environmentally influenced common experiences.

What is the surge sortie rate? How much stores are sufficient for this particular engagement? What maintainence can get me home in one piece? What can be deferred till we make port? These are experiences gained from the use of a particular machine. Again more quickly gained because of previous experience.

The IN has operated STOVL and CATOBAR carriers for almost 50 years. Such experience is not lost, some of those experiences may be a little rusted, but its not lost. Specially the environment experiences, these are never lost, as they are passed on and added to from generation to generation. STOBAR operations are different, but not an out-of-the-box experience for the IN. They’ll find it easier to adapt quickly to operating STOBAR carriers.

I’m not saying the PLAN will never gain the experience, just that it’ll be some time before they are as agile or speedy as the IN as far as carrier ops are concerned, thats all.

The PLAN is switching from riding cars to riding motorcyles, the IN has been riding motorcycles for the past 50 years. Just as you’d expect an experienced rider to win the Isle of Man TT over a newbie riding a motorcycle in that event for the first time, similarly you’d expect an IN CVBG to prevail over a PLAN CVBG – at-least for the next 5-10 years. Thats my opinion – take it FWIW.

First off, without meaning to be rude, but have you actually read and understood what I have wrote before replying?

Secondly, your analigy is good, but critically flawed. You see, contrary to your assertions, in real life, experience IS lost. How many seamen do you know who have served for 50 years and is still operational? Crews come and go with time, and experience is lost with the men, knowledge is not. Knowledge is recorded in manuals, and manuals can be bought. If the PLAN is serious about getting carriers, then its a safe bet to say that they would have paid the russians good money for their carrier operations knowledge in the form of manuals, direct training in russian accademies and in the field (as China did when they bought flankers), and all those detailed operations related questions the PLAN delegation were asking their brizilian hosts about carreirs would also help etc.

So, the really significant difference comes in the form of actual operational experience, which no amount of reading can replace. But such differences are transiant at best, and a few years at sea will see crew proficiency increase exponentially.

All the above is in relations to the operations of carriers, strategy and combat doctorin works in a similar way – anyone with good basic understanding of carrier ops would be able to draw up combat strategies, and those theories can be tried out and refined/improved/ditched when the chance to try them out for real comes. And you can also try to buy strategy from existing users, but chances are they would be less keen to supply such info then just the operational part.

To sum up, just because the PLAN have not operated carriers before does not mean that they can’t learn from others instead of trying everything in-house and doing everything the hard way. And any operational experience gap between the two sides would disappear pretty quick once a carrier is in operation. So any noteworthy difference in crew quality between the PLAN and IN in terms of carrier ops will only last for a fairly short period of 3~10 years.

The very fact that IN advocates have to focus so much on trying to over-emphysis the dubious difference in crew quality in some fantasy face-off in the distant future speaks volumes about the difference in the capabilities of the ships in question.

Well, if someone thinks that operating a carrier and its SAG is not too much different from operating a SAG without a carrier, then my job here is done. I’ll leave you guys to continue to enlighten us naval n00bs about naval warfare. Have fun, ttys.

Do you have an inability to understand english? Stop trying to twist what I said and read my post again. :rolleyes: PS, what kind of ‘job’ do you have here?

PLAwolf,

First I’ve ever heard about China possessing radar reconnaissance sateliites?. You got any sources for a Chinese RORSAT ‘wolf?. Optical satellites have been around for a very long time and, well handled, carrier’s have been dodging them just as long!. A couple of EO sats knocking around aren’t that much threat to a deployed CVBG in blue water.

Well, as with many things relating to the chinese military, there are no offical sources, my fault for not making that clear in my original post. I will look around to see if I can still find the place I first heard it from, but its been a while, so no promises Im afraid.

As for evading sats, well notice how I presented that as a specific counter to your ‘bait’ strategy. It might be a tall order to locate an enemy carrier group just with sats, but it is all too easy to use them to varify the target if you have a good idea where the enemy is at.

Also, with the knowledge that the enemy have spysats out searching for you, it might make a commander choose to pull in his escorts in to minimise the chances of detection, but that would reduce the efficiency of the escorts in providing early warning and protection.

The short answer is yes.

While Kuznetsov is better on paper, the one with the better commanders will win. You’ve got to be a super elite officer to command a carrier group – just imagine the pressure. In that regard, 45 years of operating carriers vs zilch, is going to make some difference.

Years? How many carriers, post WWII fought for “years”?

INS Vikrant was a major participant in the 1971 Indo Pak war. Seahawks and Alizes destroyed < 100,776 tons (recorded) of shipping. Now, compare that to….squat, again!

Interesting to know that India has spysat capacity, but my original point stands. As long as the Su33 outranges the Mig29K, then the Kuz class carrier will have a major advanatge in any face off.

As for past carrier operations experience. Apart from the daily operations part of running a carrier, the IN advanatge in carrier operating is hardly as large or important enough to warrent such emphysis from you.

What actual combat experience did the IN gain from using its carriers? And I mean real carrier v carrier combat experience or operating while under enemy air attack or conducting air raids on enemy fleets or well protected land bases?

The situations I have listed and their like gives you skills that are directly related to the carrier v carrier combat scenario that we are discussing. Sitting out in safe waters facing effectively no enemy threats while launching planes to sink unarmed merchants, while no doubt a critical part the war plan, is not a particulaly impressive achievement by any standards.

Wolverines got it dead on the nail for the most part. In the highly artificial world of forum combat if these two groups are seeking to attack each other and can’t draw on any inorganic resource we get the strangest naval engagement in history!.

Two groups sniffing around each other trying to get an ESM fix and both doing everything possible to deny the other precisely the same or decoy it into a trap!. It’d be ludicrous or hilarious depending on your perspective. Think Midway with jetfighters!.

The one thing I disgree with would be the ‘Once you detect something with so many electronic ears you cannot hide for long.’ part. Not so – both would do very, very well to actually hold a contact for long enough to assemble a weighted long-range strike and the possibility that the contact being ‘held’ might just turn out to be a group of area-SAM ships waiting to absorb an AShM strike and direct in an airborne ambush on the strikers might make the proposition decidedly dodgy!.

Would be one hell of an exercise to try and model!!.

One word, satellites. China already have imaging and radar spy-sats in orbit and it would be a simple, and fairly quick task to divert one or more of these to check out the area where you think the enemy carrier is before you send out the strike package. If the enemy tries to pull a fast one and bunch most of not all of their air defence assets in one place away from the carrier, then you start looking for the undefended carrier.

Whether india have such capacities I can’t say, but my point is that if I’m correct and the flanker outranges the fulcum, then it would not matter much.

If the PLAN is trying to restore the Vang to servive, which I personally doubt, then it will not be for a frontline combat role.

If the Vang is patched up and put into PLAN service, then it will function as a training ship to propair crews for new-build chinese carriers so that once the ships are finished, they can enter active service in the shortest possible time.

Think of it logically, what would be the point in the PLAN just having a single medium carrier? What can it add to a possible China-Taiwan or China-Taiwan-US conflict scenario to justify the cost and time needed to get the thing up and running, not to meantion tying up most if not all of the PLAN’s newest assets to defend it?

But, lets just entertain the notion that the PLAN does patch the Vang up and put her into service. If its just the two carrier groups in a face-off in open water far away from both nations, then the range of the aircraft would be critical in my view.

IIRC, the Su33 outranges the Mig29K (by how much I’m not sure). Either in pure AA or AG config, the flanker has better range, this means that the Kuznetsov could try to stay within a certain range braket from the Vikramaditya so that the distance is just within the flanker’s strike range but outside that of the fulcrums. Under such circumstances, there can only be one winner, and at worst a draw if the defenders can down enough flankers.

Surely you guys should have learnt by now that trying to discuss things with Flogger is an excerise in futility. Just ignore him.