PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Originally Posted by bd popeye

The Saratoga and Lexington did not take any part in US military action in Central America except for ferrying marines to Nicaragua. they did however participate in numerous feet exercises in the Caribbean and Pacific waters near the Panama canal & also Hawaii..

Always nice to have another history lesson from the Jedi Master, we will all be better equipped to face the future if we understand the past!

Originally Posted by delft

I don't know the details of the US interventions in the Middle American countries in the '20's and '30's but I assume these carriers were used during these wars, just as Japan won experience with her carriers in the war against China.

perhaps the best naval aviators of thier time were the Japanese naval aviation units, the Zeros, like buzzing bees able to perform outstanding feats in aeronautics, at the time the Chruchill thought (and not to be racist here) that Japanese are like lazy monkeys with thick glasses and short limbs, but after HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were sunk by a Japanese air attack and results of Pearl habour emerged the world knew that Japanese were not to be messed with, they ran circles around Royal Navy pilots

but their biggest weakness was the instutionalized strict military training, rigid and diciplined, if a Zero pilot died with him he took all those years of training and skills and never passed them on to new recruits thus lossing all of thier best skilled pilots without being able to replace them, skills perfected during Sino-Japanese war

that is where US marines are different, they are trained to adapt to changing situations and are flexible, i wonder how China is going to train her pilots, that is a whole programme in itself

Originally Posted by asif iqbal

perhaps the best naval aviators of thier time were the Japanese naval aviation units, the Zeros, like buzzing bees able to perform outstanding feats in aeronautics, at the time the Chruchill thought (and not to be racist here) that Japanese are like lazy monkeys with thick glasses and short limbs, but after HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Wales were sunk by a Japanese air attack and results of Pearl habour emerged the world knew that Japanese were not to be messed with, they ran circles around Royal Navy pilots

That is a questionable claim. The Zeros were very quick and nimble, but that came at the price of protection. American and British planes were slower at first because they have armored plate around the cockpit and key areas, the zeros did not, which was one of the reasons why average Japanese pilot skills plummeted so fast after they started taking combat losses.

but their biggest weakness was the instutionalized strict military training, rigid and diciplined, if a Zero pilot died with him he took all those years of training and skills and never passed them on to new recruits thus lossing all of thier best skilled pilots without being able to replace them, skills perfected during Sino-Japanese war

that is where US marines are different, they are trained to adapt to changing situations and are flexible, i wonder how China is going to train her pilots, that is a whole programme in itself

Not really true. The Japanese lost all their accumulated combat experience and skills because they could not afford to rotate experienced pilots back home to train the new recruits as the Americans did.

The Japanese were slow to adapt at a strategic level because they only had one realistic strategy for winning a war against America - to knock America out of the war quickly. There was no plan B that they could switch to so they stuck with the only plan they had the could see them victorious.

While the Americans were gearing up for a protracted slow grind, the Japanese were still trying to deliver a knock out blow in the first round. As such, when the Americans were rotating experienced pilots back home to make sure they had capable combat pilots years down the line, the Japanese never planned for the war to last that long, because if it did, they could surely loose. In the end, that strategic lack of foresight only sped up the inevitable, which we can all be thankful for.

Anyways, dragging the subject back on topic, well I think the PLANAF will model itself after the USN in terms of organization and procedures. In terms of training, well it's hard to say since there are so few first hand accounts or even observations as the PLAAF does not often train with other air forces, and when they do train, they usual only do so to learn about how the other air force thinks and fights, and the Chinese pilots would be under very strict instructions to not give anything away that might potentially be useful to an enemy.

But China is in a very uniquely advantageous position to take advantage of the best practices of different air forces and countries. China would have extensive experience on Russian tactics and procedures because of their close relationship and the various training programmes as part of the Flanker deals. China also enjoys very close relationship with Pakistan, and I would be amazed if there is not a great deal of exchanges of information and even cross training between the two sides. In addition, Chinese test pilots were very impressed by both the French Mirage 2k and the way the French pilots flew them when they were test flying M2Ks back in the 80s that it has left a lasting impression on the PLAAF.

So the PLAAF can pick and choose what they feel is the best traits and theories from both East (Russia and itself) and West (France and Pakistan).

Given the very strong commercial military relationship between China and Israel until very recently, I think there is also a better than even chance the the PLAAF would have absorbed a great deal about of information about Israeli BVR tactics.

With all of that, I think you can see that I believe that the general culture of the PLAAF is that their culture is one of learning. They don't care who developed a tactic or maneuver, if it works they will adapt it and make it their own. If that is indeed the PLAAF's culture, then they are on the right track.

Originally Posted by plawolf

Not really true. The Japanese lost all their accumulated combat experience and skills because they could not afford to rotate experienced pilots back home to train the new recruits as the Americans did.
.

that is just one reason, and not the only one, the training is also part of the reason, from army, aviation and navy, Japanese were rigid in combat, from Banzai charges to solid formations during the "great turkey shoot", Japanese were too disciplined

during battle on Guadacanal Americans were ashtonised to find Japanese army units repeatidly using the same tatics over and over again, so much so they could predict were the next attack was due to come from, on a single machince post they charged the machine gun unit no more than 30 times with-out trying to out flank it, and that was the first ground big ground engage between US and Japan

anyhow we are getting off topic back to Chinas carrier pilots, i just hope they are as flexible and able to adapt to changing situations as good as their Western counterparts

Originally Posted by asif iqbal

that is just one reason, and not the only one, the training is also part of the reason, from army, aviation and navy, Japanese were rigid in combat, from Banzai charges to solid formations during the "great turkey shoot", Japanese were too disciplined

during battle on Guadacanal Americans were ashtonised to find Japanese army units repeatidly using the same tatics over and over again, so much so they could predict were the next attack was due to come from, on a single machince post they charged the machine gun unit no more than 30 times with-out trying to out flank it, and that was the first ground big ground engage between US and Japan

anyhow we are getting off topic back to Chinas carrier pilots, i just hope they are as flexible and able to adapt to changing situations as good as their Western counterparts

To say it nicely is rigid. To say bluntly is stupid. Lol. I can't I
Imagine they really do that. Are you sure?

Originally Posted by asif iqbal

that is just one reason, and not the only one, the training is also part of the reason, from army, aviation and navy, Japanese were rigid in combat, from Banzai charges to solid formations during the "great turkey shoot", Japanese were too disciplined

during battle on Guadacanal Americans were ashtonised to find Japanese army units repeatidly using the same tatics over and over again, so much so they could predict were the next attack was due to come from, on a single machince post they charged the machine gun unit no more than 30 times with-out trying to out flank it, and that was the first ground big ground engage between US and Japan

anyhow we are getting off topic back to Chinas carrier pilots, i just hope they are as flexible and able to adapt to changing situations as good as their Western counterparts

Well, with military pilots, it is always a delicate balancing act between discipline and initiative.

You want your men to have initiative and be able to think quickly on their feet to deal with unforeseen or unexpected situations, but you don't want them to have so much initiative that they start to 'creatively interpret' or even disobey orders because they think they know better than their leaders.

Sometimes, you do need to charge that machinegun nest head-on, because the bigger picture demanded it.

I am always spectacle when people take the claim that western pilots are more flexible at face value and accept that as the ideal of the modern soldier/pilot/seaman.

Western air forces have consistently won in combat, but in how many of those wars did the west actually face an enemy remotely strong enough to have any hope of challenging their mastery of the skies? So was western air dominance achieved because they had the best pilots or because they just had the best tech and overwhelming superiority in numbers and firepower?

If you put western pilots in the kind if planes the Iraqis and Serbs were flying and pitched them against the US and coalition forces they faced, chances are the outcome would be exactly the same. There is only so much flexible thinking will do for you when you got up in a radarless Mig29 against a sky full of hostile F16s and F15s with AWACS support and shooting AMRAAMs for fun.

Don't believe me? Just look at the claimed 'kill' ratios when the USAF pitted F22s against their legacy fighters. The pilots are all similarly skilled, but the kill ratios are ridiculously skewed.

There can be no doubt that western pilots are very skilled, but equally, there has to be some doubt as to just how much of a factor pilot skill played in their recent successes and victories. Maybe they really are as skilled and capable as claimed and more so, maybe they are not. My point is, based on past action, there is just not enough evidence to say one way or the other as western pilots have not been in a combat situation where pilot skill is the deciding factor for a very long time.

As such, it is pre-mature to think that they must automatically be the best to which everyone else is to be measured against.

finally the cables deployed.
Íß½¢½¢ÔØ»úϸ½Ú±¬³ö ÀïÃæÐÅÏ¢Á¿½Ï´ó_Èý¾üÂÛ̳_¾üÊÂÂÛ̳_ÐÂÀËÍø

Dem arresting wires and dem tie down cables <3

Before anyone incapable of critical thinking asks, those cables are indeed wrapped by an orange tarp thingy. Not sure if it's commonplace among navies to do so, but we can be quite certain it's the real article.

Originally Posted by Bltizo

... but we can be quite certain it's the real article.

Yes, the next step ist air ops.

Engines... checked
Anti skid coating... checked
Arredtor cables.... checked

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

Not a repost I hope

Chinese Aircraft Carrier to use Ukrainian engines ~ ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS

Originally Posted by navyreco

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

Not a repost I hope

Chinese Aircraft Carrier to use Ukrainian engines ~ ASIAN DEFENCE NEWS

What is your purpose of posting a non dated link? Trying to discredit PLAN??? That link is also a bogus source. Anything from andrei chang is all anti China stuff......

Originally Posted by plawolf

Western air forces have consistently won in combat, but in how many of those wars did the west actually face an enemy remotely strong enough to have any hope of challenging their mastery of the skies? So was western air dominance achieved because they had the best pilots or because they just had the best tech and overwhelming superiority in numbers and firepower?

If you put western pilots in the kind if planes the Iraqis and Serbs were flying and pitched them against the US and coalition forces they faced, chances are the outcome would be exactly the same. There is only so much flexible thinking will do for you when you got up in a radarless Mig29 against a sky full of hostile F16s and F15s with AWACS support and shooting AMRAAMs for fun.

.

they had both, pilots and fighter aircraft, you missed my point

war is not just about machines, its man and machine that decides the outcome, its tatics, strategy, intelligence, training, and the machines that decide the outcome of the war, when i say "Western counterparts" i mean USN Carriers naval aviation, because we are talking in the context of PLAN Carrier pilots vs USN Carrier pilots, and USN Carriers pilots are the best in the world, I do not mean every single Western nation over Asian one

as for recent wars, like for example Iraq, it is probably the worst example you can give, no one rolls out T72 tanks (pretty modern for 1991) without aircover, no one burrys fast manouvrible vehicles in sand pits and uses them as stationary artillary peices, no ones sends thier best pilots and aircraft to another country (iraqi Mig 29s and thier pilots escaped to Iran along with Adnan AWACS and Mirage F1) the list is endless, that is perfect example of bad tatics, superior equipment can be overwhelmed by better tatics we have seen that in the past too many times, no where did i say Western military is better all the time


on the other hand Serbs downed F117 with same SAM Iraq had, yet Iraq never downed a single F117 with SA-3

Originally Posted by plawolf

If you put western pilots in the kind if planes the Iraqis and Serbs were flying and pitched them against the US and coalition forces they faced, chances are the outcome would be exactly the same. There is only so much flexible thinking will do for you when you got up in a radarless Mig29 against a sky full of hostile F16s and F15s with AWACS support and shooting AMRAAMs for fun.
.

if Iraqis were using F16s and USAF were using Mig29s you can bet USAF would have probably won, quite simply because Iraqis were poorly trained, in a excersise in 1982 two American F15 Eagles visited Pakistan and flew against Pakistani air force Mirage IIIs, at the time F15 was classed as the worlds best fighter, in the excerise, PAF lost by 3:1 ratio, where other Nato airforces were getting more like 8:1 ratio, even our F6 went up against F15 and did a good job, i will find and post the article when i dig it out


F22 wins everytime hands down to convince congress for more funding, same way USAF "lost" against Su30 MKI of India

my point being, Western airforces are better equipped and better trained in many aspects, but certainly not all, there absolutely nothing wrong with measruring urself against, training is integral part of warfare you cant seperate it from the machinees

Originally Posted by navyreco

---------- Post added at 11:11 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 AM ----------

Russia refuses to sell arresters for Chinese aircraft carrier

Revenge post..

With Arrestor wire install, I think we are going to see a real landing soon..