FedaykinIt was mentioned in cabinet minutes, not specifically a map and not specifically with regard to CVA-01 either, but with regard to a proposal for enhanced Buccaneers.
So in other words total bunk then. No map and no evidence of any briefings except for an ex Admiral with an axe to grind and some vague mention of cabinet papers!
FedaykinAnd there you have it. The pictures and videos by your own admission are posed to present a certain picture of what the Chinese program is. The real truth is carefully guarded. Do I have to say that you are accepting style over substance? And you want to believe that no accidents or incidents have occurred that are being carefully glossed over to present a picture of Chinese carrier development as flawless?
Please tell me what “stern slightly heroic’ has to do with conducting effective carrier operations. I am not getting that.
YES IT IS PROPAGANDA! We shouldn’t be drawing any serious conclusions from it as you constantly and erroneously do!
I don’t deny there MIGHT have been accidents or problems, I don’t see their program as flawless but in the absence of any hard information I am not going to MAKE UP issues AS YOU DO CONSTANTLY!
I am not accepting style over substance just withholding my judgement until we have some serious information beyond a few minutes of video and some pictures. You are the one putting up videos about “The dance on the deck” of American shooters and ascribing that as a major comparative point to what little we know about what China is up to! THAT IS ACCEPTING STYLE OVER SUBSTANCE!
The “stern slightly heroic” look is a common feature of CHINESE PROPAGANDA so shouldn’t be taken at face value as YOU SEEM TO BE!
You are not adding anything valuable to the discussion with your silly speculations, heck even JSR has posted more sensible stuff in this thread then you the last few days.
Fedaykinthe RAF are good at mentally moving targets closer to them (like they did with Australia on a map all those years ago)
Sorry that is a myth pure and simple! No evidence has ever been found (and believe me people have checked, the public records office among other places has no copy of this map). There is no evidence for this map or when the briefing was given, the story changes with telling from a few hundred to a few thousand miles!
The story seems to have originated from the autobiography of Sir Raymond Lygo former FAA pilot, Vice Admiral, Chief of the naval staff and later chief executive of British Aerospace. He was also heavily involved in the CVA01 program which should start start to get your ears twitching…
There is no evidence that RAF ever produced this map or ever made the briefing, contrary to popular belief it was the Foreign Office not the RAF who were the main enemy of CVA01. It is a myth that constantly gets wheeled out to bash the RAF despite a total lack of evidence except for the autobiography of a man who might well have an axe to grind…
FedaykinHow do you know that PLAN aircraft haven’t already taken a couple of swims? The Chinese are very secretive about their military activities and would closely guard any news that their carrier program wasn’t a total success.
Aren’t you the one drawing conclusions without evidence?
Considering how every navy which operates aircraft from ships suffers mishaps, the PLAN is no exception. We should not assume that the PLAN safety record aboard the Liaoning is 100% crash free. In fact the nature of carrier operations presents evidence that it is not.
There has been no report of any accidents, so why draw ANY conclusions?! There is no place for assumptions currently.
FedaykinWell one thing is for sure the PLAN tries to be a hard ass outfit and would not tolerate for one second the high jinks as seen in the videos I presented. In order to be effective in these operations you must lighten the mood with a little humor else the stress will kill you.
These faces of PLAN deck crew lead me to believe that to crack a smile is verboten. But to each his own. The PLAN and their carrier won’t be a threat for some time.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234446[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]234447[/ATTACH]
Oh come on two pictures from a short video for CCTV and you draw conclusions that they lack a sense of humour and hence that inhibits their carrier operations? Again absurd!
Generally most videos produced for CCTV will show Chinese crew taking a stern slightly heroic position. Then again there is plenty of videos and pictures of Chinese crew cracking jokes and having a laugh if it so suits the propaganda of the day. Again a short CCTV report is not enough to draw any serious conclusions about where they are with carrier operations.
FedaykinIf you say what you say then you are not familiar with flight operations on modern carriers. Here are some examples for your review:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj9uPfCFuCI (Check out the moves at 2:28)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFqlwAWuMTg (Check out the shooters on the deck)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unbmRg6t4p8 (More shooters)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsnlO-hpc_8 (And of course the girls! Yeah)
And just for your viewing pleasure the Brits https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id63iSuprDs
If you try ANY of these moves in the PLAN you will be arrested!
Actually I am going to talk about these videos as well Rooivalk, these videos are:
A) For fun
B) A demonstration of decades upon decades on institutional experience
They shouldn’t be used as a serious yard stick of Chinese carrier progress based upon what scant few minutes we have seen of their deck operations!
FedaykinTo be accurate the Chinese have had a long history with aircraft carriers:
“…Since 1985, China has acquired four retired aircraft carriers for study, the Australian HMAS Melbourne and the ex-Soviet carriers Minsk, Kiev and Varyag.”
China has proceeded at its own rate of speed which is true, but to say that China has little experience with aircraft carriers is false. Counting 2015 China has nearly 20 years experience with aircraft carriers.
No they have experience with scrap metal that they have purchased on the international market. It has given them clues but no more! The idea that because they had purchased the to be scrapped HMAS Melbourne twenty years ago should somehow give them the insight into instantly mastering carrier operations is again absurd.
It gave them an insight into the structure of an aircraft carrier, it gave them clues about carrier operations. It certainly wouldn’t of given them enough information to somehow allow any faster a process of operational build up of the Liaoning then they currently have proceeded with. Arguably the very recent agreed observation cruise with the Brazilian navy on the Sao Paulo gave them more insight.
You are expecting to much and then criticising when they don’t appear to be as slick as the USN a nation that has operated carriers seriously since the 1920’s!
FedaykinI have watched every one of those videos in the past and I more than familiar with carrier operations.
“If you try ANY of these moves in the PLAN you will be arrested!”
Based upon what Rooivalk?! Do you have some secret inside line to China Navy operational policy around carrier operations…NO YOU DON’T! All you have is what we all have a scant few videos and pictures. None of us have a clear insight on what the Chinese are currently doing and certainly not enough to draw any solid conclusions!
Nobody here on this forum is denying that China isn’t going to be rather inexperienced at carrier operations or prone to mistakes! That is to be expected considering they only have ONE CARRIER (how many times do I have to write this????), it is a limited resource and they are learning the ropes. On the other hand they have done what other nations have taken decades to get to which is certainly something to note. On the other hand criticising them and stating there must be some huge problem as you are based on a few videos after only barely three years is absurd! Get a grip.
You seem to think because they have copied some US procedures somehow they should of had this wrapped up in a matter of weeks, because they haven’t you conclude the program as a whole is a failure. Carrier operations are very difficult that they have got this far is impressive, they are a long way from going to being able to project power with a carrier and I don’t see that as surprising or anything to criticise them with. Considering they have made it so far with nobody ending up in the drink is to be commended.
Please stop drawing conclusions without evidence.
FedaykinWhat a load stupid waffle!
Coolness factor?
Stagnation?
China does not have a tradition of cool?
the dance on the deck?
Cargo culture cult?
All of those statements based upon a few pictures and videos! COME ON! China has only been doing this with ONE CARRIER since 2012! Again the progress they have made is admirable but we shouldn’t be expecting that much at the moment. Criticising based upon such limited information after such a short amount of time is silly YOU are being silly Roovialk!
FedaykinWith all the navies conducting carrier operations it IS a 365 day a year type of thing. This includes the premiere naval service the United States navy who conducts carrier qualifications without ceasing. Now if the US Navy feels the need to conduct relentless training what does that say about the Chinese navy with their part time training?
Oh come on that is an absurd comparison! The USN operates ten carriers and over 3700 aircraft, add to that another 10 LHA/LHD with USMC Harriers, Ospreys and Hornets. They also significant shore based training facilities for carrier operations. It is hardly surprising that America can maintain a near constant training cycle for themselves but also for foreign naval air arms, with those kinds of numbers they NEED to. China has ONE CARRIER and a handful of aircraft to operate off it, how do you expect them to maintain constant training operations?! It is not physically possible! It won’t be possible to significantly ramp up training operations until they get another flat top. It is part time because that one carrier has to be returned to harbour, refuelled and maintained. It is part time because at this point they are still learning the ropes building up crew skills and qualifying pilots. They also have to adapt their operations and retrain based upon what they have learnt from the previous cruise. This all takes time with the limited resource they have (one carrier) and the stop start nature of Liaoning is to be expected.
And there’s the rub. Those who only use the production of J-15’s as the yardstick of Chinese carrier operations fail to understand the integrated nature of aircraft, deckcrew and maintenance operating seamlessly like fingers on a hand. The Chinese to date have not demonstrated anything near this level of competency. And China will not attain this smooth competency without traveling the hard road of training, training and MORE training.
Nobody is disagreeing with you there, it will be a long road to being a competent carrier nation. It is only you seem to have a strange hang up about Chinese progress in this field constantly interpreting the state of their carrier program based on short videos or as in this case some recent lack on news. People are getting irritated because repeatedly draw conclusions with no substantiated evidence.
Perhaps you could list the accomplishments that China has achieved to date in their quest for carrier operations. When China rolled out the Liaoning there was this bluster of how they were going to fast track things and achieve competency in record time. Now China is strangely silent on carrier operations.
Well that is simple, they have landed a thirty ton+ fighter jet on a carrier and managed to get it off again. They have managed to achieve that barely a year after the ship commenced sea trials. The bluster came from the Chinese blogosphere who were rather excited at the prospect, the China navy on the other hand was measured in what they released about it (well except for that music video). Strangely silent, how? Press releases and images occasionally come out, are you expecting constant wall to wall coverage?! Just because there isn’t much reports leaking out doesn’t mean the conclusion should be drawn that there is a major problem.
As you correctly point out China has chosen to undertake a complex task. But this complex task can only be mastered by launching and landing aircraft from the deck. Many who have analyzed Chinese carrier operations have noted the spotty application of proper procedures taken by the PLAN. The question that is being asked is China really serious about developing modern carrier operations?
Again China has only just started at this, nobody is saying that they are not going to be a bit spotty in operational procedures. The China navy have officially stated that and have explained how they have tweaked detail procedures based upon what they have learnt so far. To suggest that a navy that has only started at the carrier game is somehow not taking things seriously is again absurd.
If you want to cut China some slack then be my guest. I disagree that it will take the Royal Navy years to achieve competency with their new carriers and the F-35. Do not forget that Royal Navy personnel have been working on the US Navy Marine carriers with the goal to smooth the transition to their own home grown carriers. And Royal Navy pilots have been closely involved with the development of the F-35B.
Yes the UK has historical advantage through experience and the benefits of close relations with the USMC but don’t expect the QE class to be fully worked up as a system with the F-35B for a number of years. Flying from a carrier is one thing but “Go to war” is another. QE will start sea trials in 2016, the F-35B won’t start deck trials until 2018 and the F-35B force will take several years to build up in numbers. The Royal Navy will have its hands full for a number of years before the QE class can be regarded as being fully operational.
To be perfectly honest it appears that the PLAN carrier is mirroring the footsteps of the Russian carrier, Kuznetsov as they attempt to operate fixed wing aircraft from the deck of the Liaoing. The speed of development seems to be the same.
And?
Look nobody is denying that it is baby steps when it comes to Chinese carrier operations, what is irritating is your drawing of conclusions on scant evidence.
FedaykinSpeaking of Chinese development it seems that CV-16 progress has completely ground to a halt. Has there been some type of accident or setback that has caused a re-evaluation of the PLAN carrier program?
The short answer:
No!
Come on Roovialk change the record! The Chinese have only just started carrier operations, you seem to think that if they are not doing full 365 day a year power projection deployments with a fully operational air wing then there must be some form of problem.
They have put into service a vessel that is only just out of refit and totally different to anything else they have fielded with a crew and pilots who are totally new to carrier operations.
They are only just starting to train regular pilots, all operations up to this point has been with test pilots and prototypes hence Deino’s excitement at an apparent production example sitting on deck.
Considering how complex the task they have taken on is I am impressed how quickly they have got to this point. The breaks in operation will be to evaluate the previous deployment, make operational changes, repair and then repeat.
Current projections are that it will take the Royal Navy several years to work up the QE class with the F35B and that is with a nation that has nearly a century of carrier experience and decades of VSTOL deck operations under their belt. I think we need to cut the Chinese a bit of slack…
FedaykinGermany should have dropped Eurofighter, and got EJ-powered Gripens instead.
Um how much of a Gripen is made in Germany vs Eurofighter?!
Blackhawks and Apaches instead of the miserable junk Eurocopter is delivering.
How much of a Blackhawk and Apache is made in Germany vs what comes out of Eurocopter?!
Merlins as SeaKing replacement.
Not bad buuuuut how much of a Merlin is made in Germany vs an NH90?!
Iraq should have bought MiG-29 SMT’s + Su-25 instead of F-16’s.
I refer you to the above point about Eurofighter…
FedaykinFedaykinI think Slowman was permabanned for having some rather unpleasant views and not heeding the Mods warnings.
FedaykinToonyc has touched upon the real issue (as has Buitreaux in the past), whilst we here on a UK based aviation forum get easily distracted into debates about the Falklands for the Argentine airforce this is about credible defence of their borders.
The FAA are now at a point where their fast jet capability is at the edge of collapse. They are struggling to secure their borders and the de facto type performing QRA is the subsonic A-4. The Mirage capability (all types including Nesher) is no-longer credible and virtually inoperable for maintenance, safety and airframe life reasons. Many of the A-4 are sitting in storage and the navy Etendard are in need of a modernisation, the only positive news in recent years is limited purchases of updated Pampa giving them a type that can at least keep pilots in jets in lieu of a better solution.
Add to that the radar coverage of their borders is spotty to non existent means that even if they had a supersonic type to intercept interlopers they don’t have the means to properly detect them.
Out to sea piracy of fishing stocks by Chinese factory fishing ships operating between Argentine and Falklands waters is rampant, the Argentine navy has not got the capacity to properly patrol their waters with MPA or fisheries protection vessels to chase them out. (Slightly mentioning the Falklands here) Argentine refusal to work with the Falklands over fisheries protection only exacerbates the situation. There are satellite images of the South Atlantic at night where you can see a huge blob of light from the Chinese city at sea of fishing vessels.
It is a very sad situation for a country that in the 60’s and 70’s arguably had the best fast jet force in South America.
Whilst as a British citizen I don’t want Argentina threatening the security of the Falkland Islands I actually think it would be to Argentinas and the Falklands benefit if Argentina could properly patrol its borders ensuring drugs are not being run over the porous frontier or illegal fishing damaging fish/squid stocks.
Sign In
