RoovialkYES 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.
I suggest the measurement you are applying to the progress of Chinese carrier aviation are based on these very same standards. Anyway time will tell. Let me ask this question: If by 2017 the PLAN is still moving at this snail’s pace what will be your response then? Care to speculate?
RoovialkOh 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.
And 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.
RoovialkYou 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.
How 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.
RoovialkI 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!
Well 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.
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.
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]
RoovialkAll 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.
To 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.
RoovialkWhat 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!
If 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!
RoovialkThe comment comparing PLAN carrier development with Russian carrier development is presented in the context of after several decades of developing aircraft carrying warships starting with the Moskova (1967) to the present day Kuznetsov, the Russians have still been unable to field a competent carrier force complete with all the bells and whistles expected of a carrier force.
I argue here that several decades into the future the PLAN carrier force will be no further developed relative to western carriers than the Russian carriers are today to western carrier development.
When things started I had great expectations for Chinese carrier development due to their attempt to copy US Navy procedures, their shore based carrier simulator and the example of what NOT to do as presented by the Russian navy.
Yet today we see the PLAN has stagnated in developing a complete carrier system. Creating a carrier force capable of up-tempo operations consists not of just hardware but human software as well, and China has not demonstrated to my eye the ability to be loose enough to move aircraft and crewmen in sync together on the deck. This could be attributed to the rigidity of Chinese society or something else. But I believe that the PLAN is not capable of performing what is known as “the dance on the deck” which is vital if you are going to have a man-machine interface which imposes order on the chaos of flight operations.
I have said it before and I say it now: The Chinese lack the coolness factor, the secret sauce if you will that is necessary for carrier operations.
Just look at any of the videos of aircraft and crew interacting on the deck of a carrier during flight operations and you will see the definition of cool. China does not have a tradition of cool. And they will need that if they want to be a player in the carrier game. The hand signs, the body movements of men working in close proximity to dangerous machines all scream cool.
Some say that the Chinese have adopted a Cargo Cult approach to developing carrier procedures. That may if fact be true
RoovialkThe 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.
With 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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…
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.
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.
RoovialkUh, I see. Considering deliveries of the 052C are still ongoing let alone the 052D the pace of Chinese development never fails to amaze.
Speaking 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?
RoovialkSharp video! The French are looking real good
RoovialkI’ve read as much of this as anyone else has and consider that they will use everything they can from what they hacked in the development. I will tell you that most of these wsj articles don’t arrive at correct conclusions based on given evidences.
In reality, the stuff they took is far more useful in coming up with radar or air defense system to “find” F-35 or using their configurations and such to understand what makes F-35 a stealth aircraft or such. They can’t copy it because they don’t have domestic suppliers to produce the same parts. They don’t have the same materials, the same engines, the same machineries and tooling, the same electronics and such. F-35 is said to have 24 million lines of code. Even if China was able to steal 90% of that, I can tell you right now it will be completely useless on FC-31. If you work in the software industry, I’m sure you’d agree with me on this. Without this brain, you simply can’t replicate the flight control system, MMI or the integrated combat system (the brain) of F-35. The most they could do steal is the high level software architecture of F-35, but that would be a general aid to all of Chinese programs, not just FC-31.
The Chinese do the best they can with the materials they manage to obtain. Purloined materials play a big part in Chinese aircraft design. Lets just say that the J-31 was ‘inspired’ by the F-35.
Roovialkactually, a lot of things are stronger than original if you can take it and make it better. Calling it a xerox is complete lack of respect for the people working at SAC who has to do the entire development process. They don’t have the same parts that they can use as F-35, they don’t have the same constraints and they don’t have F-35 blueprints. All they have is pictures and whatever data they hacked before the development started. You can’t copy that. But since they are not copying it, they can theoretically create something better than F-35 (however remote that maybe).
According to sources the Chinese stole terabytes of data concerning the F-35. This includes blueprints, specs and the detailed internal configuration of this aircraft. And you are naive enough to believe that the Chinese ignored all this data in the design of the J-31?. Look at that line drawing posted by paralay and reconsider your response.
“… the J-31 is modeled on secret blueprints of the American F-35 stolen by Chinese cyber spies. Having pilfered terabytes of data about the F-35’s design and operational capabilities, Beijing scheduled the J-31’s maiden flight as if to underscore that it robs America blind with impunity….”
http://online.wsj.com/articles/chinas-cyber-theft-jet-fighter-1415838777
America is stupid to allow such theft to occur. You want to talk respect then respect those hard working engineers, staff and others working in American aerospace. SAC designed their J-31 by standing on their shoulders. And as Deino showed in the pictures he posted above, SAC and the Chinese can hack into designs but even after obtaining the data cannot execute.
RoovialkEmpty set
RoovialkIs that with or without the dimension constraints imposed by Lusty´s lifters and the Rolls Royce Liftsystem?
Rooivalk if you want to bragg about LM´s aircraft, go to the correct topic. Or try WAFF.
No I don’t want to brag about LM aircraft. All I say is give credit where credit is due
RoovialkIf China actually can just copy F-35 without spending all the money to develop it, it would do it in a heartbeat. Why wouldn’t it?
The simple answer is that China did copy F-35 to the best of their abilities. Remember: A Xerox is never stronger than the original.
Sign In
