???
Did you miss the part where I explicitly pointed out the other coloured vests in the picture? Do you need me to zoom in on the picture and draw a circle around it for you?
And jeez, do you know enough of the russian carrier vest colouring system or their carrier operations to say it’s a “step backwards”? I don’t doubt the deck crew of Kuznetsov are less capable than a USN carrier, but trying labelling coloured vests as something like the main reason for it is stupid.
It’s also worth mentioning that having colour coded vests isn’t unique to the USN. Other navies also use coloured vests, so it’s a bit arrogant to ascribe it as the “US way”.

I’m not sure why you keep making these massive inferences about the PLAN’s carrier operations from a few photos or a few seconds of video; you really haven’t gotten better at it over the last year or two.

Your own picture shows the PLAN stepping away from the system the US Navy and other navies from around the world use and moving to a deck system more like the Russian navy.See picture below.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]237163[/ATTACH]

The Russian navy has never adopted a color coded deck crew system. This could be the reason why Russia has not fielded a better aircraft at sea program

[ATTACH=CONFIG]237164[/ATTACH]

Maybe the Chinese are developing their own ‘mix’ of carrier systems in an attempt to achieve competency in the shortest time. The ‘dance on the deck’ is hard to master and maybe the PLAN is using their own ideas based upon the limited experience they have gathered to date. After all they do claim that the Liaong is a training ship.

And since you pointed out all these other navies who use the colored vest system you should be aware that it was the US Navy who actually pioneered the color coded deck system that is in use today. The pictures below from WW2 tell the tale

[ATTACH=CONFIG]237165[/ATTACH]

Finally you should be questioning the PLAN and their sluggish snail like pace regarding carrier operations rather than my observations of this pace. Even the US Navy is aware that proficiency at carrier operations takes practice, practice, practice at sea. The PLAN seems to believe that having a carrier tied up dock side will some how result in mastering carrier operations. But to each his own.

In picture one that J-15 doesn’t have its hook down for landing. Touch and go? In the second picture the deck crew are not wearing the color coded jersey’s shown in early pictures of PLAN carrier operations. What’s up? Have the Chinese abandoned the US Navy style they were trying earlier and gone to the Russian naval system.

The Russian developments and the papers/books you cite have as much relevance as Vectron in evaluating the DF-21D! We have NO EVIDENCE that any Russian developments had ANY INFLUENCE on China when they developed the missile! To say otherwise is PURE SPECULATION! None of those authors could possibly have first hand knowledge of what China is getting up to!

The Russian SS-NX-13 had the same mission as what the Chinese are now trying to accomplish with DF-21D. That is to target the carrier battlegroup. In the case of the Russians they decided that a nuclear warhead was good enough. China looked at what the Russians were trying to do and decided to marry Pershing 2 technology with what the Russians were trying to do and the DF-21D was born. It is surprising that you have not picked up the Russian foundation of the Chinese anti access strategy.

It is also important that you understand that the Chinese have also copied many other elements of the Russian system including the Russian Ocean Surveillance System. China has not produced anything new. They have taken up where the Soviet Union left off when it crashed and are attempting to weave the lessons learned from the various Okean exercises conducted by the Russians into an anti access strategy with a Chinese flavor.

The thing that seems to have soared over your head is the technology of maneuvering reentry vehicles and the complex kill chain the Chinese will have to maintain by tracking a moving target in real time. The Russian solution was to use a nuclear warhead with its large radius of destruction. Can you with your various sources shed any light on how China will solve these difficult problems?

No I am not going back over old ground, I base my opinions on Chinese defence based upon what I see and what little information comes out of official sources. I generally give greater credit to people like Deino who have a known record writing about Chinese defence matters.

What I don’t do as you have is look at a picture where somebody looks serious and then conclude the entire state of Chinese training.

I come at the subject with an open mind and a healthy degree of scepticism.

Do the sources you use draw upon these sources (below) when discussing the Chinese efforts to develop an anti-carrier ballistic missile? If not then you need to get up to speed

Lightning Bolts by William Yengst

Chinese Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile (ASBM) Development: Drivers, Trajectories and Strategic Implications by the world famous Dr.Andrew S. Erickson

Anti-Access Warfare: Countering A2/AD Strategies by Sam J. Tangredi

And of course any information related to the development of the Soviet R-27K missile which provided the inspiration for the Chinese DF-21D

[ATTACH=CONFIG]235696[/ATTACH]

According to the Chinese military DF-21D has achieved some sort of Initial Operational Capability so that puts it beyond the wild dreams of Chinese fanboys.

“Many people believe” = “Roovialk believes”

One can argue that the significance DF-21D has been overhyped by tabloid media in both China and the US, but that is what tabloids do. Certainly Chinese planners do not consider DF-21D to be the answer to neutralising American supercarriers — it is merely one tool in the toolbox. Nonetheless it is safe to assume the China is continuing to research and implement improvements over the entire kill chain.

By your own admission you point out that the DF-21D is hype. So how can this DF-21D bluff be “one tool in the toolbox” when it has never been shown to work or tested? Some tool I would say.

At least Iran conducted an at sea test of their anti carrier technology where China has been bragging about the DF-21 ASBM and has never conducted an at sea test of their system.