Uhhh…1) We don’t know how they actually operate. We haven’t seen a full exercise filmed and explained in detail. 2) Why reinvent the wheel? By that logic it’s not just China who’s wholesale copying Western procedures. Militaries Western and not are wholesale copying each other too.

I can only base my possibly flawed judgement on snippets of video I have seen where PLAN deck crew will perform a procedure that is out of context for the operation they are being called upon to carry out. It is almost as though they are actors on a stage. But I guess everyone has to crawl before they can walk and run

Thobbes in starting this discussion is on to something. Consider this analysis of Asian thinking on cockpit culture as being the cause of several aircraft crashes:

“…On July 6, Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed while attempting a landing at San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Two people were killed in the Boeing 777 accident, and more than 180 of the 307 people on the flight were injured.

This is the important part:

“..Since the airline involved, Asiana, is based in Korea, some observers have asked if the crash might have a cultural connection, as discussed in a chapter in the 2008 bestseller Outliers by author Malcolm Gladwell…… he said Korean Air’s problem at the time was not old planes or poor crew training. “What they were struggling with was a cultural legacy, that Korean culture is hierarchical,” he said.

“You are obliged to be deferential toward your elders and superiors in a way that would be unimaginable in the U.S.” he added. That’s dangerous when it comes to modern airplanes, said Gladwell, because such sophisticated machines are designed to be piloted by a crew that works together as a team of equals, remaining unafraid to point out mistakes or disagree with a captain.”

Cultural quirks like these maybe the achilles heel of the PLA. These cultural quirks may explain the lack of innovation and wholesale copying of western procedures bythe PLA

The US lost at least 3,573 aircraft over Vietnam. If the US fights China, it would lose that many aircraft within a month. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_losses_of_the_Vietnam_War

This isn’t about China fighting the US. This is about China attempting to invade Taiwan and the Taiwanese delivering China a nasty surprise. This is between China and Taiwan. Can you understand that?

Taiwan is prepared to show China that they also have sharp teeth and claws

It would be a setback, but it wouldn’t be a big setback. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_China

It certainly would have negligible effect on the Chinese war industry. Taiwan is a province of China. There is no negotiation, no comprise, no bargain, no deal. :eagerness: The only way Taiwan can become a country is if Taiwanese speak Taiwanese rather than Chinese.

Chinese DF-41 ICBM, with a speed of Mach 25, can also rain havoc on American power plants. They would be very difficult to stop.

Why do you continue to drag America into this? If China attempts to invade Taiwan and Taiwan defends itself using weapons Taiwan has developed what does that have to do with America?

Didn’t you say earlier that this is a dispute between China and Taiwan?

Would China after receiving a severe blow from Taiwan choose to launch an attack on America? That would be very foolish for China.

It should be pointed out that the WZ-10 is not a Chinese design. Like much of China’a ‘hi-tech’ weaponry it was designed by the Russians

“Sergei Mikheyev, General Designer of the Kamov Design Bureau, member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and Hero of the Russian Federation dropped the proverbial bombshell at Heli-Expo here in Las Vegas this afternoon.

Saving the best to last in a briefing to update a series of Kamov programs, Mikheyev told an astonished crowd that China’s Z-10/WZ-10 attack helicopter was actually designed in great secrecy under contract for China by Kamov. Dubbed Project 941, the concept was initially designed in 1995 and developed by China into the WZ-10/Z-10.

The two-seat helicopter made its public debut at the 2012 Zhuhai airshow – and while the helicopter had been heard of before then – its appearance at the show came as a surprise. At the time observers noted an outward resemblance to the AgustaWestland A129 Mangusta, but no connection was ever made to Kamov until today.

“…The United States Department of Defense reported that in Taiwan, “proponents of strikes against the mainland apparently hope that merely presenting credible threats to China’s urban population or high-value targets, such as the Three Gorges Dam, will deter Chinese military coercion.”

As soon as China launched an invasion of Taiwan there would be massive launches of Taiwanese cruise missiles against China’s 3 Gorges Dam. China should think carefully before attacking Taiwan. Taiwan knows it may fall but they plan on taking China with them.

Yes the deck operating manual is freely available as well as various specialized navy publications that cover the ends and outs of carrier operations. Still deck operations are not considered the “dance on the deck” for nothing and culture plays a big part on how proficient a navy is at performing deck procedures. The Russian navy for example seems to missed several important steps in building successful deck operations. These include a lack of color coded jerseys and minimal interaction between deck crew and taxing aircraft on the deck. In fact the Russians consider pri-fly as a control tower and launch aircraft via retracting the hold-back chocks from there.

Since the Chinese and the Indians both use the same Russian designed hold back chock system to allow aircraft to build up thrust before launching via deck ski jump it will be interesting if they both continue to use the Russian method as their respective carrier operations continue.

If the Chinese are successful with the Liaoning, we may see the Russians adopting Chinese ideas for the Kuznetsoff to improve their efficiency. I look forward to observing the continuing evolution of Chinese doctrine and procedures as they gain more experience.