[QUOTE=Jinan;2100952]

Your posts just go to show that carrier operations are a dangerous business. Other than that what is your point?

NOMEX gloves anyone?

Regarding the nomex gloves, if they are indeed nomex what’s your point? Is the PLAN experimenting with crew safety by striking out on their own with nomex instead of using tried and true leather gloves?

Here’s an example: The Royal Navy used polyester uniforms until the Falklands battle showed that polyester uniforms were highly combustible after many crew suffered terrible burns when the Sheffield was hit and started to burn. Today they use cotton uniforms treated to resist flash fires. The point is will the PLAN strike out on their own and ignore what has been shown to work?

Really the question is how much will the PLAN borrow from western carrier operations and how much will they try to do on their own. The subject is a fascinating one and as a follower of Chinese military developments I find highly interesting. What’s your take on the subject?

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?

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.

You know, roovliak, one of these days the Liaoning is eventually going to have a faulty aircraft recovery, that is to say a crash.

That’s simply a case of probability. Carrier operations are inherently risky, more so than land based air operations and land based operations have pretty decent accident rates as it is.

So when the Liaoning eventually does have a crash, or a dramatic incident like the USS Enterprise’s Zuni misfire with many casualties, how will you react? Let’s play this little thought experiment game.

Will you try to damn the Liaoning’s safety procedures or condemn the unprofessionalism of their crew or blast the inexperience of their pilots perhaps? How about if you were there in 1969 and the Enterprise had its tragic accident, or if you were present for every single USN carrier aviation crash? Would you condemn the USN for those factors with similar severity?

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

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224129[/ATTACH]

Of course he’s blowing it up.

The landing of a single helicopter with a flight deck clear of anything. If you want to seriously accuse them of non professionalism, show me pictures of that kind of lack of gear once they spool up to a full airwing with a flight deck launching, recovering and spotting aircraft.

I suppose if we’re going to take one circumstance as evidence of extreme lack of profesisonalism, I suppose the marine nationale and the USN are both unprofessional too.

I hope you realize just how ridiculous your claim is.
You see three deck crew not wearing helmets for the landing cycle of a single helicopter on an otherwise spotless flight deck, and you have the gall to instantly accuse the sailors of extreme unprofessionalism and disregard of safety as if it is endemic.

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.

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.

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.

Another thing noted in the video released by the PLAN is the interesting variation on US Navy hand signals as being practiced by the PLAN. This may be the first sign that the PLAN is exploring breaking away from the USN model

As seen below a PLAN deck supervisor dispatches two crewmen to the just landed helicopter with a untofore seen rolling motion of the hands. The other significant thing of note is the hierarchical dispatch of the crewmen. The US Navy practices an ‘own initiative” type system to where the color coded individual crewman assesses the deck situation and initiates things independently without being told. The PLAN seems to be designing a supervisor driven deck handling system. Perhaps this is cultural.

Do not forget the US Navy carrier deck system is nick named “the dance on the deck”. Perhaps the Chinese have a different dance.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224126[/ATTACH]

I agree about some Chinese members being ridiculously overly defensive, but I would actually contend that there are also a lot of members who are overly reactive and presumptuous to China’s military development. For example, I think to assume that China is simply copying and then improvising because they can’t do it perfectly, as opposed to China taking concepts and then innovating and adapting them to their own needs, assumes a level of incompetence that doesn’t match the threat level being pushed by some people. If we’re going to discuss China as a serious security presence/threat, then it would be wise to match that with a level of respect and realism for what they’re actually capable of doing. It’s important not to ignore when China adopts, copies, or steals technologies, but equally important not to blow that out of proportion and ignore when they manage to make progress on their own (which will be happening more and more often, I should note).
.

Just for the record please outline examples that support your views. It does not have to be an exhaustive list, but one that touches on the highlights of recent Chinese innovating and adapting foreign aviation technologies to their needs

Do you even know how much money and oil is “at stake,” relative to China’s wider investments and other oil sources in the region never mind the globe?

It’s not going to freaking invade a country for something like that.

So here’s the question: Suppose in the next few months China is in the position of abandoning its decades old investment in Sudan and has to pull its citizens out of the oil fields that Chinese investment has built. Will China just shrug its shoulders and walk away from all the billions of development dollars it has invested in Sudan? See below:

“…China is continuing its massive investment project in Africa with an $8 billion injection of funds into Africa’s newest country, the South Sudan. Recent fighting has deprived China of about 260,000 barrels a day….”

Who does China have waiting in the wings to make up that 260,000 barrel a day short fall?

And with turmoil all over Sudan how will China safely evacuate its citizens? When America attempted to evacuate Americans from the area their V-22s came under heavy fire and were driven off. Could the Chinese anti-piracy task force in the area become the staging base for Chinese forces to fight their way into the Sudan to evacuate Chinese citizens?

“…Like elsewhere in Africa, China’s engagement with South Sudan is not simply about multibillion-dollar investment deals. It also plays out in smaller ways on the streets of Juba and other towns where Chinese expats have opened “Chinese Friendship” clinics and schools, as well as hotels, restaurants, and other small businesses…”

Suppose the warring factions turn on the Chinese. Would China in desperation appeal to the only country capable of helping pull Chinese citizens out of the country: The United States?

Actually I think what we said was that it would take 20 years to catch up to the west… that is including the fact that the west would also be advancing forwards.

But reaching technological parity obviously doesn’t mean reaching overall military parity.
The question we should ask is how capable will the USN remain from now to 2030-2040, and how capable will the PLAN be in that same time?

Good question to ask. So how would you answer that?

I think you’re making making a bit of a mountain from a molehill.
China has interests in those regions, just as it did in Libya, however the situation in Sudan and certainly in Libya, were not worth going in guns blazing by any stretch of the imagination.

China has interests in South Sudan but it also has interests in the whole of sub saharan africa. Calling South Sudan China’s “oil lifeline” is massively hyping up its importance.

As for the Libyan scenario, what debacle are we talking about? It evacuated its citizens using a combination of military and economic-political means, and it was quite successful.

China imports 30% of its oil from Africa. It can hardly afford to have that much oil interrupted without feeling it. Regarding Libya China was forced to abandon post haste Libya because they backed Kaddiffi. Leaving Libya in such a rush caused China to lost billions

“China counting financial losses in Libya”
In the wake of thousands of workers being pulled to safety from Libya, Chinese authorities are scratching their heads to put a cash value on the amount of business being lost in the North African country.

Government figures released Thursday showed that 35,860 Chinese have left Libya, leaving behind construction materials, machines, vehicles and project contracts totaling in the billions of dollars.

According to China’s Ministry of Commerce (MoC), there were 75 Chinese enterprises with investments in Libya, operating 50 joint projects and employing more than 36,000 workers. And 13 of those firms are State-owned.”

… Do you seriously think the situation in South Sudan is one which China is willing to enact unilateral military action against a foreign nation?
“What the future of modern China is really all about” — give me a break…

With so much money and oil at stake I do not know what China will do. But they will have to do something. And fast