GollevainenWell As a fin, a strange people that beguns to small talk to you over buss stops or related public place…Its something that I just cannot bear…
But also offcourse all opponents of my wievs over politics…hippocracy and everything related to middle class and ‘normal’ suburban life…rich people, wheter they are just oligarg snobs or true gold-teeth-coast type of ‘old’ money…
and lets see…all religions and people moralisising my doings with some imaginary fairytales saying that some dude in the skyes knows better than I wheter I have been bad boy or not… :dev2:
and all rigth-winger stuff…nationalism (which they use to disguise under ‘patriotism’), liberalism, conservativism…flags…and how they display them in every where…and how they whine about “why the workers cannot be flexiple and understand that current economical situation needs bending on all sides” My ass, while they deal millions of euros to share holders and kick out people from profitable factories….
and those so called ‘working class’ politicans that sits in the boards of the same companyes that moves job to china and India…Martti Viialainen, who is so eager to unite our lefwing part to the local labour party…and all other feminist-enveriomentalist of the leftwing party that confuse the issue and stall the party by retaining it in its non-ideological state…and the frikin ‘valkyeries’ of the party that are so NATO-horny and ready to sacrifice the all remnants of the leftist ideology only to get into the next cabÃnet
All stuff that you can watch on the MTV that is supposed to be music…
Coca-cola company by changing the flavour of Ligth-coce…now it taste like urine, but my theats cannot whitstand any real sugar…they practically pressure me to becoming an alcoholist…
Spring time…when the snows begun to vanish and all that its revealed under it…
Dog ****…and people who complains about it…Its good to tell somebody that go and pick it, when You dont have 40kg Rotweiler doing the crapping….
…all ‘im so bloody cultural person’ that generalizes fantasy-genre to include all sorts of Harry potters and larpers into same bunch…affects severly on my work morale…
Horses…dont as why…i just hate them…
…And generally people that have nothing else to do, than whine about everything and list things that they hate :p :diablo: :dev2: :p
GollevainenWe both agree that manuals do not, and cannot contain everything, the difference is degree. You seem to think that a manual is next to useless and insist that people have to learn everything through trial and error, and I strongly disagree with you on that point. I think training material, the properly written ones at least, are written by professionals who base their work on first hand experience of from interviews with people who have done the job before.
No, No and no. I do not think that manuals are useless, I just said that not all cannot be written to manuals, things that might seem small but eventually can be quite big issues. Don’t try to put words to my mouth…
I think your judgement have been greatly effected by the, frankly, astonishingly poor training material you got when you were serving, and to some degree, you have the a similar lack of confidence in all formal training material.
Now how did they teach you in your service time? Or have you ever even been in army? If you haven’t, then I suggest that you wont go judging thing that you have no clue. Training of artillery mens in every single country (and training of all basic troops) is done by roughly using the same methods. You don’t teach hwo to shoot with howitsers by giving you them manual and say “go and fire!”. Nor you wont say to infantrymen that “here’s the manual of how to engage hostile forces, read it and go to the front line”. Training of all practise work is bestly done by showing how to do it and “drypractice” it with the proper equipments. Sitting in schoolpench has no use to artillerymens…
This repeating myself over and over is getting bit lame. My point have been that Chinese, when starting to operate carriers, wont learn everything from books, they need to get real experience of their own. You cannot expect that the manuals written by some others will 100% fit to the chinese service methods or that relying to them will automaticly mean you know how stuff is done. It seems you have never done any practical job…becouse if you have you would get the point what i’m saying. From books you can only learn the theory, the practice cannot be learnt anyother way than trying it yourself. And without handeling the practice situations, you cannot operate anything.
Oh have I? Operating planes from carriers will be different from operating them on land, obviously, but that does not make the operations so different and alien that past experience from land ops cannot help to add in the ‘little things’ that manuals might noy include.
This is just ridicilous. Ofcourse chinese (or any other) know how the planes are flown fundamentaly. Aircrafts behaive similarily in the air wheter they were launched from ground or sea. The issue is the taking off and landings. If you say that taking off from carrier and landings is not so different than operate planes from ground, well i suggest that you better stop posting in this thread.
What comes to the soviet/russian carrier operations, i admitt, my choose of words weren’t the best. But it wont change the Chinese situation. Like i said, China cannot adapt the russian expereince right away and expect the knowhow is passed directly to chinese carrier crewmembers. Telephaty is still (unfortunetly) just for fantasybooks. I seriosly doupt that Russian participation in chinese aricraft carrier program wont be anything more than just delivering the systems. China and russia have not so bright past on the teaching relations, i doupt it have improved since.
Gollevainengo visit sinodefenceforum.com and seek for thread called Varyag pics…
GollevainenI am not a little astonished by some of the sentement expressed above, the most basic foundation of human civilisation is our ability to learn from past experience and avoid making the mistakes of our predecessors, and the key to that is WRITTEN language and not word of mouth. The superority of the written text over mental recollection and verbal expression is manyfold and comprehensive. Memory fades, some people are better at articulating their ideas and thoughts then others etc. But a text well ‘never’ fade and always express itself in a clear and procise manager that the vast majority of humans can understand with perfect clarity. Operation manuals that have evolved over the course of decades are in effect the collection of distilled knowledge and experience of generations of seamen. The whole point of going to the trouble of making a manual in the first place is so that future generations can avoid the exact ‘make the same mistakes and learn it all the hard way’ pitfall you insist the PLAN have to suffer.
I never said we shouldn’t write manuals nor thurst them. My point have all along been, that not all can be learn from books, that there is important factors and methods that are never officially printed anywere. Those things don’t surpass the manuals, but completes them.
As I have said before, the PLAN is not alien to the requirements of operating large warships, and much of that knowhow is directly transferable from destroyers to carriers, just as much of the funderamental flying skills learnt in a turboprop trainer can be applied to advanced multi-role jet fighters.
But as you seem to accuse me of not reading your post properly, the same thing aplyes to you in this one. I said in my previous post that the issue isen’t the chinese skills of operating the ship itself, but how well they can operate the carrier operations in whole package, including the aviation assets over sea.
And of course there are things that will be completely new to the PLAN, but it will not be so fundamentally different that past experience in other fields cannot to ‘imported’ and adapted. Maintaining a jet in the hanger of a carrier is not that different from doing the same job on land; storing and moving munitions and fuel on a carrier is not that different from doing the same on land etc. Add to that the fact that those procedures that are most unfamiliar, namely, deck ops, have extremely detail and procise operating procedures that I have no doubt would be recorded in excessive detail in a whole host of manuals and handbooks. That is because those ops are high-risk and cannot leave anything to chance or leave ambiguities, as even tiny errors have led to major accidents or problems in the past. Reading and following those manuals will allow PLAN crews to know all the most critical elements needed to get things running smoothly without incident. And the little things like, ‘spitting into the exhaust of an Su33 is a bad idea’ etc, Im sure they would be able to figure out for themselves quickly enough.
In here I cannot agree with you. Carrier aviation operations differences alot of those in made in ground. it’s almoust silly to state othervise. Why did russians spend almoust two decades to learn the stuff when they certainly knew how to operate Flankers in ground? You cannot expect that the experience of russians or brazilians will pass directly to chinese. They MIGHT sell some manuals or send some advisors, but it wont make the fact that chinese will need at least a decade to get everything run properly dissapear.
Why would the PLAN care when the Gorky is ready? The activities of the IN is, to be honest, something they couldn’t care less about right now. The PLAN’s primary concern is Taiwan and the Yellow Sea, that is why I am highly spectical of the notion of them getting the Varg into frontline service – there is just no justification for the costs such a venture would need, as it does not add any significant improvement to the PLAN’s ability to meet the threats and challenges they are likely to encounter in the above mentioned regions. It is possible that the Varg will be put into service as a training carrier for PLAN crews to gain real operation experience as part of the PLAN’s long term modernisation plan (whicn includes a blue water navy with carriers), but it seems a little too early for that right now judging by the stage where the PLAN is right now, put in another way, the PLAN have more important things to do with its money and people.
But isen’t this thread purpose to compare these two from our armchair admirals point of wiev? Ofcourse both indian and Chinese officals thinks these sort of silly compare “which is better” issues are completely unimportant and irrelevant to real life.
As for russian experience, well Im sure you know that that is a highly misleading and unrepresentative example considering the fact that the period in question is the exact same time when the USSR imploded and soviet/russian military budgets dried up, resulting in major setbacks and delays to ALL projects of the time.
I’m well awere of the russian situation after soviet collabse, but it’s hardly any excuse. If the carrier program would have had more funds directed to it, i still doupt the time of learning all the stuff would have been considerably narrower, perhaps few years…But then you have to remember that Russian/soviets had operated aircrafts overseas since 1974…So not all was new to them, unlike to china…
Gollevainenhood
vampires or werewolfs
Gollevainenhood
vampires or werewolfs
GollevainenWell Mines are the key element of Finnish naval tacktics, have been and will be for years to come. As you mentioned the Germans minings back in the 41 (which were mostly done by us :diablo: ), baltic sea and exspecially our wide and fuzzy shoreline with housands of little islands and narrow passes is ideal for minewarfare. All baltic navyes have strong capapility to lay deadly minefields.
Mines are best and the most cost-effective solution for coastal naval warfare as it requires no high technology nor oversized surface combadants. Almoust every ship canbe fitted with mineracks (like soviets, almoust every warship had minerails) and special minelayer ships are usually multirole vessels, like Finnish Pohjanmaa and Swedish Karlskorna (minelayer/traiing ships) or Finnish Hämeenmaa class and Yugoslavian Sliba class (minelayer/transport-amphibious ships)
GollevainenWho told u that chinese are refurbishing varyag? How do explain that chinese who havent even operated a fully operational carriers can build one faster than russian? What kind of logic people use
My own Eyes…that’s the thing with many chinese systems, as they tend to keep so quiet, you have to only trust your own judgement in the face of the evidence and the evidence and pics that we have seen from Varyag speaks very strongly that the lass is going to be put on service…
GollevainenYou are right, plawolf, we should get back to the issue.
Lets not forget the fact that we are not talking about the Chinese pulling randoms out of the infantry and putting them in the carrier, the PLAN have been operating warships for decades, and there will be a huge amount of overlap in the basic shipborn operations between carriers and any other sizeable warship. Just because it is a carrier does not mean that everything on the ship behaves in some strange new way, so experienced veterin crews should be able to ‘import’ much of their past experience with them. The fundermental differences are in deck ops and hanger ops have very specific and tightly followed operating rules and procedures – they a have to be because of the dangers involved, many men have lost their lives doing things differently or forgetting to do things right. The military don’t leave room for error when the stakes are so high
Ofcourese chinese wont trow infantry soliders to run Carriers, nor is the question anyway that chinese wount be abvle to handlle the ship as ship. The question is, how much china needs to be able to operate the carrier’s airwing properly? And how big lead India enjoys in this field. China haven’t operated any sort of fixed wing aviation onboard carriers and India have, period. There is no excaping of it, and stating that India doesen’t really enjoy any advantage is living in petty denyal.
You mentioned the high stakes on carrieroperations, thats true. But you cannot expect chinese to just miracleosly adopt properly fuctioning airdeck operations by just simply reading books…They need to learn it from the hard way, just like Indians had to learn it in the sixties. Now Indians haven’t operated the STOBAR system before and making the Gorky fully operational takes time. But it wont take as much time as chinese have to consume as Indians already knows the “little things”, the overall flexibility to ensure the airoperations goes as planned. There is no other way to learn those than expereince, and China doensen’t have it, India have it.
But if we look the issue in bigger scale, there is only one way that china could narrow this lead that India enjoys, and that is to get the Varyag operational before Gorky…Gorshkov should be ready in 2010, but Indian warship building industry (as the final refitting is supposed to carry out in Indian shipyards) is know for it’s long building times and lacking behind schedules so who knows? If China can get Varyag operational in let say, 2008? Then there is theoretical few years plus to chinese. But then again is few years making any difference? Russians had Kuznetsov running trials since later part of the eighties, but it was only in 2003-5 when the airoperations were fully in hand…
GollevainenSuomen Puolustusvoimat
Ilmavoimat
40~50 advanced jet-trainer/ligth attacker in caliber of korean Golden Eagle (one f404/M88 class engine and so on…)
Decent update to F-18Cs to make them fully equiped F/A-18s…so more ground attack capapility…
~10 new transports7multi purpose platforms, one or two migth be awacs in manner of swedish Saab 340 and at least one ELINT plane…G.222 or good ol’ Hercules migth be rigth platform…thougth not forgetting An-70 if its still available…
at least 30 NH.90 some of them dedicated to naval operations…
Merivoimat
build one or two 1,500-2,000 ton corvettes to replace the old gun boats (name them karjala and Turunmaa offcourse)…whit Ukmunhoto SAMs and RBS-15mk3 missiles
Some sort of transport-ship either in Danish way or more conventionally landing ship whit helicopter capapility…
revial the intresting Tuuli class howercraft FAc and build one squardon of them to support the Hamina class FACs, that should be build at least one pair more…
and most importantly, rent a submarine from sweeden for training and to renew the submarine arm and make plans for purchasing either swedish or german made diesel subs… 3~8 would be enough
Maavoimat
Quit all plans to retire the armoured Brigade…and reinforce the three rapid reaction brigades to mechanised brigades by providing them their own tank units.
Make a mobile anti-tank versions of the new AMV and CV90 IFVs, both whit 100-105 mm gun and ATGM obtions…
more and more 120mm AMOS mortar vhechiles to all infantry brigades as well as 155mm 155K98 52cal Gun/howitzers (naturally 😉 ) and bye a battalion of more of the M239 MRLS system from Netherlands to reinforce the ones allready purchased…also the newest ammunition from US or who ever makes them…more likely, set up an domestic production line to Lapua….
SAMs…more, desperatly needing more…Tunguska systems for all rabid reaction brigades…and S-300 systems to supplement the BUK M1s….
Gollevainenb-2
murder or suicide
Gollevainenb-2
murder or suicide
GollevainenWell I am very suprised to hear that, and if I were in your shoes, I would have taken this up with the highest authority I could find. Such inadequite training material is a major hinderence and WILL cost soilders their lives in combat. Also, I have serious misgivings about this ‘culture’ of informal or ‘organic’ recording of basic operating procedures. Just as well you guys didn’t fight in a war, or else you might very well have ended up like the Japanese did in the pacific – they had, arguably, the best pilots and carrier crews in the world when they attacked pearl, but because their pilots stayed in frontline servive instead of going home to pass on their experiences to the next gen of pilots (and presumably didn’t have time to help write new training manuals), the skills and experience they learnt died with the men, and the americans had turkey shoot after turkey shoot after the original batch of pilots were whittled away
Training of artillery mens is not done by books, it’s done by making them go trough hell with hammering, piggye carrying, endless fireposition rallyes and so on… :diablo: Like i said, the NCOs and officers go trough some sort of non-straight-forward-military trainings, but normal grunts like i just practiced the real things…So i guess you misunderstud me. Finnish army have very sophisticated training methods and i’m sure a hell of lot of academic work is done to achive the level that we currently enjoy. But my point was that not all is learned from manuals or operational protocols. Practice is often very differnet.
The difference between the serivces also seem to be greater then I thought, well, in your case at least. Eggheads might be at a loss to write up useful operating manuals for infantry in the field, but the artifical environment of a warship is their world – they did, after all, design and build the thing from scratch. So I would be willing to bet good money that manuals for warship ops would be a great deal more useful then that for the infantry. You would certainly not find any service who claim to be half professional running a warship like the way you have described how things got done in your unit!
In there i agree you…operating warship is bit difference than artillery battery…But you missed my orginal point. Like i said in the first time, the things not in the manuals are so called little things, but those things may very well be the cruisal elements of how fast we could set our howitser to firing position. Things like, what to do if the radio wires aren’t connecting due heavy rain or -30 degree tempature, How to carry ammunition boxes which has no haddles, or how you can fire trough misty optical aiming devices….little things that isen’t written to any manuals, but can cost us several minutes if we wouldn’t know the proper shortcuts…
GollevainenAre you suggesting that is also the actual location of the hangar? If so, why would it be only on one side of the ship?
Found this on http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=386
“Lancé en 1985 et admis au service actif en 1991, le Kuznetsov mesure 304 mètres de long pour un déplacement de 65.000 tonnes à pleine charge. Ses installations aéronautiques comprennent un pont d’envol de 300 mètres de long (surface : 14.700 m²) avec une piste axiale de 60 mètres s’achevant par un tremplin incliné à 12° et une piste oblique longue de 220 mètres. Son hangar, desservi par deux ascenseurs s’étale sur 5380 m². “
If the width is 26 m then given this hangar area it’s length must be about 207 m rather than 152 m. Alternatively is length is 152 m then width should be about 35 m, which corresponds roughly with the Kuznetsov’s beam.
I don’t know where the french site has got it’s information, but it’s quite comonly know that the hangar dimensions of Kuznetsov is 153 x 26 meters. It’s stated so in many sources, both russian and western.
anyway to the hangars location…here’s a rough redrawn (my paint is quite useless in these things…) of Gauntles pic, and it shows the proper location (or least indicates that it’s about there 😉 ) of kuznetsov hangar…
GollevainenTo plawolf…
The things i was refering from my army days were those things that you just cathc up, from older conscripts or fellow soldiers who hear it from others and so on. It’s hard to explain to someone not served, but if you have, you know what I mean.
I never saw any actual manual, so everything we learned came form either the drill instructors or from conscript-trainers (junior sergants). Althoug they have certainly been teached via manuals and so on, lots of the stuff, exspecially from the conscript-trainers were exactly those “little things”, stuff that they had learned from their trainers and those learned from theirs and so on…
The “little stuff” is usually the “operational update” to manuals, eg. as manuals so often have nothing to do with practice, you need to learn who things are done in real life from some other ways. In artillery, and exspecially serving with soviet howitsers, the information and knowhow coming outside the manuals were extremely cruisal and were the base of the operational effectivness. In basics the same issue was when we changed to the new finnish gun-howitser. As it was brand-new and filled with minor child-ilnesses, we usually had to adopt a completely different operation methods that was printed in the manuals. As we were one of the first to use that gun, those adoptions that we made passed on to the next conscription patch and the experience is passed on…but not in the manuals.
To Gauntlet.
Your meassurements have a big fault. The hangar (the red area in your pic) cannot be below the superstructure, becouse of the machinery exhaust inlets. The hangar is placed that the edge of it is touching the farest edge on the lifts (in the hull side). When i get back to my flat i can draw correction to your pic so you see what i mean.
Sign In
