So name these “operational reasons”. Since the US Navy is the gold standard for carrier operations and the PLAN has wisely copied US Navy methods as the template for future carrier operations, this includes building a EMAL catapult. The various Chinese websites speak of building an EMAL captapult. This quote is just one of many:

“Major General Yin Zhuo does believe that China should make a great effort to bridge the generation gap with the U.S. in terms of military technology, and that the ideal result will be that no generation gap exists between China and U.S. He pointed out that China’s aircraft carrier will also gradually follow the path of technical revolution, creating an information based vessel with an electromagnetic aircraft launch system, and a comprehensive electronic system”

So why isn’t the PLAN speaking about installing ramp based takeoff systems for their future carriers?

If the future of carrier operations for the PLAN is ramp based takeoff systems then why did Central Military Commission of the PRC decide to pick Ma Weiming (马伟明) for development of an electromagnetic catapult for future aircraft carriers ?

If you want to play with the big boys you develop cats. If you want to stay in second place you use the ramp. Hope that clears things up for you.

Let me clarify this.
A catapult is superior to a ski jump for carrier operations, there is no doubt about that.
However a catapult is not superior because it can launch fighters at MTOW and a ski jump cannot. It is due to other reasons, such as, a catapult is less dependent on headwind, and can launch a bigger variety of aircraft, namely the all important fixed wing AEWC more reliably than a ski jump can.

There is actually a rumour that the PLANs first indigenous carrier may be STOBAR btw.

Actually the 4 500 kg bombs could be replaced with 4 500 kg PGMs and more importantly it demonstrates the weight the J-15 can carry.

It’s also stupid because 4x500kg= 2 tons already, add on two YJ-83Ks and 2 PL-8 and you get over 3-4 tons, which is over the supposed 2 ton payload limit. I wonder if the articles author knows basic arithmetic.

I’m amazed that they think a fighter should normally have a 12 ton external payload either.lol that is that payload of a medium bomber more like.

China has problems in the areas illustrated below regarding modern jet engine development. The point is that they cannot copy certain aspects of modern jet engines because they lack elements of the basic infrastructure. Even when examples of the engine they wish to copy are provided China still is unable to manufacture

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224229[/ATTACH]

…errr…… Having challenges in those areas is different to being unable to develop them into a fledged product, and WS-10A is already in service in large numbers, ya-dah ya-dah. These might have been problems ten years ago, etc etc.

I’m not sure where you pull these sources from btw. The only decent article I read on chinese engine development was from Andrew erickson a few years ago and even his write up had a few niggling inaccuracies.

(Oil leakage, really??? Lol)

By the way, the statement “they lack elements of basic infrastructure” literally says nothing, you know that right? What is infrastructure in this case? How basic is basic? Define “lack,” does it mean an inability to produce engines on par with F119 and F135 or F110, or what? Specify “elements”.

No offense, but I’ve read enough of your posts to think that your understanding of chinese military matters is scant at best, so could you at least avoid the self assured confidence in your statements?

—

If you really want to broaden your knowledge a little, go over to China defense forum
http://www.china-defense.com/smf/index.php

—

Addendum, engine news is nascent and immensely difficult to come by. That is why these details from various western sources, and also your own claim in that post, are cast with heavy skepticism.

Pretty much. Think about it

Any time machines or aircraft are in motion full safety practices are in effect

I do not think safety is as ordinal as you suggest but rather it sits on a continuum, and I don’t think the continuum between the various situations we both show are that different. You see the key difference being the fact that one has a moving aircraft and one doesn’t. I see the key commonality being otherwise barren flight decks and the presence of dangerous heavy objects whether they are an AIM-9 or a Z-9.

At this stage of their development how can you consider the PLAN carrier operations professional? What are you measuring it against? You said that you were going to look into how the PLAN / Liaoning carrier operators appeared when placed on the scale of navies who operate carrier.

What did you find?

I never said I was going to look into it, I said that if we were truly interested in measuring the Liaoning’s proficiency we should measure it against other navies as well as the US.

Unfortunately the Liaoning isn’t operating with a full airwing yet so we can’t compare them. My entire point was that once we had sufficient data in the form of pictures, videos etc of them operating a full flight deck. My entire point was to wait two or three years before we have sufficient evidence to pass judgement, and also to give the crew sufficient time to get ready. Otherwise choosing such an early moment to judge is like making a toddler do algebra and decreeing it must be retarded because of it.

There have been several major deck fires on modern US Navy carriers. The Enterprise was just one. But one major lesson learned was to give the bombs a protective fire retardant coating which can allow the time to push ordnance overboard to prevent it from exploding on deck. You see this coating on all carrier bombs today

For you to bring up these carrier fires illustrates a point to be made about how inherently dangerous flight deck operations are. Even the US Navy with its first class safety and damage control procedures has from time to time suffered accidents on the flight deck. But rigorous attention to detail allowed US Navy crew to gain control of the situation save the ship.

Many have pointed out the PLAN can make great strides in creating a professional carrier aviation crew due to the fact that they have the model of the US Navy and others to follow. In other words they can profit from the mistakes of others. They can leapfrog over several generations of development by careful attention to the lessons provided by others.

But what is the use of claiming you can make great strides when you fail to heed the hard lessons learned by other carrier borne navies?

It is this lax attention to detail that I point out about PLAN deck operations. They are building their carrier operations on a shaky foundation. Refer to the links I provided and you will see.

Well, I expect when an accident occurs for the PLAN you will use similarly gracious phrasing of words especially given their far later start to carrier operations.

We have only reached a temporary detente regarding this important issue. I will be back on you when the PLAN kindly gives me more material to work with. Stay tuned and thanks for the discussion

Well, this issue is an ongoing one, furthermore it may be unwise to compare the PLAN to the USN in the first place. They replicate the USN’s coloured shirt system, because naturally it’s the most sensible system out there, and they even use some superficially similar hand signals, it appears. However it would be a mistake to believe they seek to copy every single USN standard to their own, as it would be a mistake to believe the PLAN to believe they are as well funded as the USN either.

Thus it may be beneficial in this discussion to bring in the standards, gear, and competency of other navies with carriers, such as the MN, IN, Russian Navy, (until recently) Royal Navy, and the multitude of other countries which operate small deck helicarriers, and see where the Liaoning sits on that spectrum. It would also make sense to reconsider which particular factors are most important to “competency” or “safety,” as well as whether particular “oversights” actually bear any significance towards the larger attention to detail for the overall ship and navy.

For example, with the helmet-helicopter scenario, we need to ask whether that “oversight” means the PLAN is similarly “unprofessional” for other aspects of ship operations and maintenance or what not, and whether we would ever see helmetless heads during non-“lull” flight or deck operations.
If the answer to these questions are no, via observance of other similar tasks where safety is a concern such as UNREP, carrier flight operations, or maintenance, etc, then the lack of helmets during this helicopter landing is simply not very important. That is why I caution against making vast generalizations without at least doing a litmus test of your assumptions first.

Of course it will. It goes with the territory. But the effects of a mishap can be minimized by following correct procedures. Were you aware that the helicopter carrier Moskva was nearly lost to fire due to lax Russian navy procedures and design faults? Like the PLAN the Russian navy had to learn the hard way about taking short cuts. Short cuts are a no-no

so you agree, then, that the USN was incompetent, cutting corners, and un professional, which was what led to the tragic 1969 USS enterprise Zuni rocket misfire?

Sadly your hopes and wishes for China to get carrier operations rolling as quickly as possible blinds you to the fact that the Chinese navy is already starting out on the wrong foot. As I mentioned above they are cutting corners on safety. And examining the pictures you posted goes to show that you do not have what would be termed “flight deck” awareness. For example the first two pictures you posted are from the French carrier Charles DeGaulle and we see armorers bombing up a Rafael during a lull in flight operations. Even then they should be wearing head protection. But I challenge you to find a picture of the French or other modern navy conducting flight operations without proper head gear.

—

Finally you posted a picture of bombs coming up to the flight deck. Again active flight operations are not underway. And I can guarantee that the whiteshirt in the picture will have proper gear before any engine starts on that deck

The point is that the helicopter landing on the Liaoning is conducting FLIGHT OPERATIONS and any crew involved in flight operations must as a matter of safety for himself and the rest of the crew wear proper safety equipment. The PLAN is making big mistakes even at this early stage. And it will cost them before it is over.

Oh okay, so is it only during flight operations that a helmet is the difference between life and death?

So is the landing of a single helicopter equivalent to a full roaring flight deck?

And is loading a freakin AIM-9 on the wingtip rail of a fighter with none of your redshirts wearing a helmet is apparently okay then? I hope you can see that you are now deliberately twisting conditions inch by inch to suit your purposes for lambasting the PLAN for being unprofessional.

Next you posted a picture of US Navy deck crew practicing rigging up a barrier for aircraft recovery. Once again take note that there are NO flight operations being conducted. And take note that all the crew DIRECTLY involved in the barrier rigging are wearing proper head gear, eye protection and please note the steel toe boots on the crew.

I’m just going to focus on the little steel capped boot thing.

Here’s the photo of the USN crew with detail on the shoe

Here are a few photos of the Liaoning’s crew with sight of their shoes too.

I don’t see any difference between them that suggests one is steel toe capped and one isn’t.
So can you please give up the entire “they don’t have steel toe cap boots” thing, when this claim is even more groundless than your “they are unprofessional and breaching safety because they didn’t wear helmets while landing a helicopter”…

The PLAN is practicing unsafe deck procedures at this early stage of their development. Period. The pictures do not lie. Some crew are wearing cranial helmet gear while others are wearing nothing. What’s the use of copying USN deck procedures if you are not going to go all the way?

“nothing”? I see no nudity about. By “nothing” do you mean no helmet? Does that constitute such a dramatic word “nothing”??

Give me a break. Not wearing a helmet doesn’t constitute “unsafe deck procedures”. The MN and the USN both have crew on deck without helmets during moments of calm.

I pointed out before the wearing of soft shoes on the deck by PLAN crewmen rather than standard USN style steel toe boots. Apparently the PLAN wants to learn carrier deck operations the hard way with injured or killed personnel. Seems like the PLAN deck personnel failed to read this important manual:

2. Wear a complete and proper flight-deck uniform when working on the flight deck. This includes:
A. Cranial, properly marked with reflective tape and with approved goggles and sound attenuators attached.
B. Mk-1 life preserver. Make sure your float coat is maintained in accordance with current PMS standards.
C. Flight-deck safety boots. Steel toe, non-slip soles.oning
D. Flight-deck jersey. Sleeves rolled down.
E. Gloves

The above checklist is from Flight Deck Awareness Magazine. You need to familiarize yourself with this and other sources of carrier information if you want to speak with any authority on development of PLAN carrier procedures. Each time I view video of PLAN flight and deck operations I spot several dangerous operations the PLAN is doing that happens either by commission or omission.

http://www.public.navy.mil/navsafecen/Documents/media/flight%20awareness/FlghtDckAware_amphib_05.pdf

Addendum: do we know whether the deck crew’s shoes are soft or not? I’m sure you’ve worn steal capped shoes before, the caps themselves are on the inside of the shoe, so it’s next to impossible to see. Having looked at the shoes of the liaoning’s deck crew, I don’t see a reason to think they aren’t steel capped.

You draw your opinions out of ignorance about how dangerous the flight deck really is.

Please step down from your little perch.
Where did I ever say that a flight deck wasn’t dangerous? When did I say that the PLAN or the USN or MN were “safe” in having deck crew about without a helmet or whatever? However there is a precedent among the “big dogs” that even they allow crew to forgo helmets during various operations, including that of loading munitions as my pictures display, which is among the more potentially head damaging tasks one can partake in at sea or on land.

If it were up to me I’d have everyone wear a helmet on deck, even if there was not an aircraft or a ball of tumbleweed. However, clearly, real world navies including the hallowed USN, seem to think differently. Therefore I see no reason why your accusations of the PLAN being “unsafe” in the landing of a single helicopter is justified.

It takes more than colored jersey’s to run a carrier and believe me operations on the Liaoning. If you think the answer is to add MORE aircraft on the deck as your statement about a first airwing suggests, I can tell you hands down it will be more dangerous and people will be killed or seriously injured. The PLAN needs to get serious if they want to run with the big dogs.

Since when did I ever say the PLAN can run a carrier with only coloured jerseys?

My statement is that if you really want to judge the Liaoning deck crew’s “professionalism” then you should at least wait until they have an airwing under realistic operations and then judge their lack of helmets or whatever.

Pointing at a landing of a Z-9 on a clean deck and jumping up and down and say “omg no helmets = the PLAN must be unprofessional and dangerous” is full of s**t.

And like I said, the “big dogs” also have crew on deck doing jobs without helmets now and then. I suppose they should have you go and warn them people are at risk of being killed or seriously injured.

In their attempts to get up and running with carrier operations the Chinese are cutting corners on the areas of safety.

Give me a break.

I suppose the USN and MN are both cutting corners with their operations too. I assume you have seen the photos I posted? Some of them not only lack helmets, but also life preservers! gasp! So much for adhering to the rule book.

If you’re going to apply your ridiculous standards at least apply them evenly, or at least learn what everyone else does first.

—

I agree with you on principle that they should be wearing helmets for safety. However, in reality, the deck crews of the USN and MN (and probably of other navies too) also have their people do jobs on deck during low tempo without helmets. I will agree with you that the PLAN are cutting corners in this case if you agree with me that the USN and MN have similarly cut corners to an equal degree for their entire longer length of operating flattops.

Otherwise, if you are actually interested in judging the professionalism, competence, and safety of the Liaoning’s flight deck, wait until they have a full airwing and are able to do high tempo flight ops. Coming in now so early on such a ridiculous example and accusing them of cutting corners is just a false target, it’s almost like an elaborate straw man.