PLAN Carrier Operations..News, Videos & Photos

Originally Posted by tphuang

Let's get this straight here. The point isn't that China will suffer that many casualties. SAC doesn't produce enough aircraft in a year for China to loose over 700 in one year. That doesn't mean they will not loose pilots and crew and operators. In fact, it's a good thing for them to loose a few people. That will mean they are taking chances. You don't improve by doing just the most basic landing during day time in perfect weather and sea conditions with plenty of time between each take off and landing. Back in the 80s and 90s, do you realize how many % of PLAAF pilots can even fly aircraft during night time and during adverse weather conditions? Do you know how long it took for China to be able to land more than one helicopter on a ship? This stuff takes time and is very costly.

Well TP, as an air force brat, its never good to lose anybody, they are somebody's son, and husband , maybe even their daddy. The fifty's and sixty's were a very dangerous time in aviation in general, military aviation in particular. My Dad has been gone 10 years, but he stated that if you could survive a six month tdy in the C-119, flying ADF approaches, you would be a good instrument pilot. My point is all military aviators are in some sense supermen, they do daily what most of us wouldn't try the first time, and if you have ever strapped your butt into an airplane and blasted off in the middle of the night, it is an humbling experience!

Originally Posted by Hendrik_2000

What it got to do with Carier landing the fact that China just started night landing in 80 and 90. Technology growth doesn't follow a straight path and considering the budget of 20 billion a year in 80 ,90 I am not surprised. You want to show your knowledge about PLA keep writing your self depreciating blog about PLA

There is a difference between taking a balanced view toward PLA than self-deprecating view.

What you don't get is that having accidents and crashes is a good thing. If you read what any of the so called "big shrimps" on Chinese bbs say, they have repeatedly stressed that having accidents mean the pilots are training harder and getting better. I agree with that. If you don't want any accidents, then don't bother landing. Just leave the aircraft in the hangar and you will never have any accidents.

The point about night flight in 80s and 90s is that PLAAF and PLANAF have historically been very conservative in their training programs. If you read my blog entry on the idea of pilot training in PLA.
China Air and Naval Power: Evolution of PLAAF doctrine/training
You will see the difficulties they had when they were trying to learn to utilize su-27s. As PLAN receives these new hardware, it takes a lot of time and money for the software to catch up. When it comes to carrier operations, that means they have to repeatedly practice taking off and landing in adverse conditions and at night time. All the J-15 pilots will have to go through the process of learning to do this. When that happens, you will inevitably get mistakes and naval air is a lot less forgiving than land based air.

Originally Posted by tphuang

The point about night flight in 80s and 90s is that PLAAF and PLANAF have historically been very conservative in their training programs. If you read my blog entry on the idea of pilot training in PLA.
China Air and Naval Power: Evolution of PLAAF doctrine/training
You will see the difficulties they had when they were trying to learn to utilize su-27s. As PLAN receives these new hardware, it takes a lot of time and money for the software to catch up. When it comes to carrier operations, that means they have to repeatedly practice taking off and landing in adverse conditions and at night time. All the J-15 pilots will have to go through the process of learning to do this. When that happens, you will inevitably get mistakes and naval air is a lot less forgiving than land based air.

keep in mind that historically china was poor and had few resources. Maybe thats why they have a conservative mind regarding new stuff. they couldnt afford to lose precious planes/pilots. Today´s military hardware is far costlier than the 50´s and 60´s. They cant afford to take too much risks at the same time. they will have to take chances alright, but dont expect china to risk losing expensive J-15´s or even severilly damaging the only carrier they have just to push training to the edge. They will take their time to learn.

Look at their space program. they have manned launches for almost a decade, yet few launches, but 0 fatalities or failures. Compare that to the USA/USSR programs 10 years after 1st manned launch. IMO, thats what the chinese will do regarding aircraft carrier program. Slowly, but steadly.

Originally Posted by kroko

keep in mind that historically china was poor and had few resources. Maybe thats why they have a conservative mind regarding new stuff. they couldnt afford to lose precious planes/pilots. Today´s military hardware is far costlier than the 50´s and 60´s. They cant afford to take too much risks at the same time. they will have to take chances alright, but dont expect china to risk losing expensive J-15´s or even severilly damaging the only carrier they have just to push training to the edge. They will take their time to learn.

Look at their space program. they have manned launches for almost a decade, yet few launches, but 0 fatalities or failures. Compare that to the USA/USSR programs 10 years after 1st manned launch. IMO, thats what the chinese will do regarding aircraft carrier program. Slowly, but steadly.

I don't believe we can draw parallel between space program and carrier program . As you said they have small budget for space program some thing like 3.6 Billion over the span of the program starting in 1980
That is the reason why the space launches are far between and spaced widely compare to the US effort.
The idea is to launch fewer but safeter and no need to repeat experiment what already has been proven.

The other thing is there is no urgency in space program China is not competing with anyone. The reason they do it because they realize that space program is the driver of technology and give strong impetus to the development of technology in China be it military of civilian. And it have multiplier effect down the economic food chain. Not to mention the propaganda effect of the space program.Employment and developing of skilled engineer and technician.

Carrier program is different . They have the budget and urgency to get it done fast. Specially in the area of SLOC China need to safe guard their blood line. Because China is increasingly dependent on raw material and trade to guarantee fast paced of economic growth and the stability of the governing regime .

Plus the technology is less demanding and not at the cutting edge . There are plenty of civilian equivalent in commercial air flight. There are zillion of open source literature on Carrier operation

Originally Posted by Lion

How many mishap France has suffer regardin landing and take off from deck since they start their nuclear carrier?

Th French have operated aircraft carriers since 1920



The Bearn

In another forum a thread was posted about the PLAN Cv-16 . Naturally the haters appeared posting their usual nonsense & mis-information.. so I posted this,

We, at SDF(my forum), keep track of this ship.

Facts;

The ship was purchased from the Ukraine in 1998 and towed to China in 2001. Her re-fit started in 2005 and was completed last year.

The Chinese carrier first started sea trails in August 2011. She has been to sea;

first sea trial (10 august 2011 – 13 august 2011) (3 days)
second sea trial (28 November 2011 – 10 December 2011) (12 days)
third sea trial (20 December 2011 – 29 December 2011) (9 days)
fourth sea trial (7 January 2012 – 16 January 2012) (9 days)
fifth sea trial (19 April 2012 – 30 April 2012) (11 days)
sixth sea trial (7 May 2012 – 16 May 2012) (9 days)
seventh sea trial (23 May 2012 – 1 June 2012) (9 days)
eighth sea trial (7 June 2012 – 21 June 2012 ) (14 days)
ninth sea trial (6 July 2012 – 30 July 2012) (24 days)
tenth sea trial (27 August 2012 – 30 August 2012) (3 days)

total 103 days at sea in 1 year and 20 days

She returned to the shipyard from late January '12 to mid April '13 for "tweaking/repairs".

How the ship performed during sea trails is unknown..where as the PLAN does not leak or much information.

Unlike the Russian carrier this ships flight deck is covered with a USN type non-skid.

She has no assigned aircraft.. Only 6 J-15 sea borne fighters have been built. there's evidence, skid marks, showing that some air operations have been performed.

The ski-ramp limits the payload the aircraft aboard. And so does the aviation fuel capacity. For comparison an US Navy A USN Nimitz class has a capacity 2.8 million US gallons (8000 tons) of aviation fuel. the Chinese CV capacity for aviation fuel is only 600 tons.. Unless the Chinese improved on that figure during re-fit. and yes the Nimitz is a nuclear powered ship with a much higher capacity for liquid Av-fuel. But still the capacity for av-fuel on the PLAN Cv-16 is less that an retired USN Forrestal class.

The PLAN has had training programs in place for many years to learn how to operate a CV. The best place to learn how to operate any ship is aboard said ship. Operating a carrier does not take place over night. It will take some time for the PLAN to become proficient with CV operations.

In case you were wondering China is the Worlds second largest shipbuilder.

Originally Posted by Hendrik_2000

What it got to do with Carier landing the fact that China just started night landing in 80 and 90. Technology growth doesn't follow a straight path and considering the budget of 20 billion a year in 80 ,90 I am not surprised. You want to show your knowledge about PLA keep writing your self depreciating blog about PLA

No reason to get personal.

Originally Posted by kroko

what is this? i have never seen that before.

I drew that picture and posted on CDF to indicate that piece of metal was added early Spring so the white line can be extended downward farther. They used to paint a yellow line in the recessed area but most likely pilots who made approaches have indicated that it's not clear enough.

Interesting how Japan, Vietnam, and Philippines are right in the race to build large ships right behind China

Originally Posted by bd popeye

In another forum a thread was posted about the PLAN Cv-16 . Naturally the haters appeared posting their usual nonsense & mis-information.. so I posted this,

Eh, that 600 ton aviation fuel number was from the Vikramaditya and not the Liaoning. And we don't know if that was a full tank or just half a tank or a quarter tank. We don't know how much aviation fuel the Liaoning can take. I tried to find out how much aviation fuel the Kuznetsov can take but no luck.

Originally Posted by NikeX

Th French have operated aircraft carriers since 1920

In this case, they also had training with the Americans on catapult launches

Originally Posted by NikeX

Interesting how Japan, Vietnam, and Philippines are right in the race to build large ships right behind China

At the rate that Vietnam's ship building industry is bleeding money, I'd don't believe that are even in the race.

I guess since the majority of carriers afloat are American there's the constant need to compare everybody else's carriers to American ones. I suspect the raison d'etre, requirements and doctrine of the Chinese Navy is very different from the US Navy. The amount of words devoted to a STOBAR carriers lack of deep strike capabilities because the planes can't take off with tons of bombs and missiles is moot to the point of irrelevance. I don't think the plans or doctrine of the Chinese is to park a carrier off the shores of Iran, Libya or for that matter California and bomb them around the clock, instead it's role would in the near term interdict an opposing naval force and deter it from getting close enough to the chinese coast line to make trouble, with a secondary role of gunboat diplomacy vs "lesser" countries/navies (apologies for the use of the term "lesser" but hopefully everyone knows what I mean) much in the same way that the British employed their carriers in the 1950s - 1960s.

A Liaoning with two dozen J15s and 600tons of aviation fuel and with a couple of Type 52C/D and Sovremenniys in tow, a flotilla of subs lurking is probably enough of a "fleet in being" to give a tier one navy cause for concern. The J15s and 52C/Ds MIGHT just keep the other sides planes busy enough for the Sovremenniys to slow down the opposing carrier and for the subs to hole it below water.

A Liaoning with a flight of J15s and a dozen helicopters deployed to the horn of Africa would keep a lot of merchant shipping safe

A Liaoning sitting in the Gulf of Thailand would keep a large chunk of the Vietnamese Airforce away from the Chinese border

Just as China doesn't have as many ICBMs, SSBMs stealth bombers and thermonuclear weapons as say the USA and what they have isn't as lethal/sophisticated etc doesn't mean they can be ignored or it isn't useful. The Liaoning is probably just the right tool for the PLA Navy just enough capability to be useful, not enough to invite the Americans to an arms race!

Originally Posted by hkbc

I guess since the majority of carriers afloat are American there's the constant need to compare everybody else's carriers to American ones. I suspect the raison d'etre, requirements and doctrine of the Chinese Navy is very different from the US Navy. The amount of words devoted to a STOBAR carriers lack of deep strike capabilities because the planes can't take off with tons of bombs and missiles is moot to the point of irrelevance. I don't think the plans or doctrine of the Chinese is to park a carrier off the shores of Iran, Libya or for that matter California and bomb them around the clock, instead it's role would in the near term interdict an opposing naval force and deter it from getting close enough to the chinese coast line to make trouble, with a secondary role of gunboat diplomacy vs "lesser" countries/navies (apologies for the use of the term "lesser" but hopefully everyone knows what I mean) much in the same way that the British employed their carriers in the 1950s - 1960s.

A Liaoning with two dozen J15s and 600tons of aviation fuel and with a couple of Type 52C/D and Sovremenniys in tow, a flotilla of subs lurking is probably enough of a "fleet in being" to give a tier one navy cause for concern. The J15s and 52C/Ds MIGHT just keep the other sides planes busy enough for the Sovremenniys to slow down the opposing carrier and for the subs to hole it below water.

A Liaoning with a flight of J15s and a dozen helicopters deployed to the horn of Africa would keep a lot of merchant shipping safe

A Liaoning sitting in the Gulf of Thailand would keep a large chunk of the Vietnamese Airforce away from the Chinese border

Just as China doesn't have as many ICBMs, SSBMs stealth bombers and thermonuclear weapons as say the USA and what they have isn't as lethal/sophisticated etc doesn't mean they can be ignored or it isn't useful. The Liaoning is probably just the right tool for the PLA Navy just enough capability to be useful, not enough to invite the Americans to an arms race!

I don't think PLAN CV is just build to keep enemies away from PRC shore. The fact about the money and time China devoted in making long range cruise missile, ABM, clearly show what the doctrine is. In fact, I don't think China are short of missiles. In terms of offensive attack ballistic missiles. China are second to none.

I think is wrong of us currently to tie PLAN CV to USN. USN will remain supremacy in CV for next 20 years. What We shall try to perceive Liaoning currently,is to model after the Charles de Gaulle (R91). As demonstrated by France in recent Libya conflict. Despite having only one carrier and not a large airwing like USN CV, Charles de Gaulle (R91) still bring a lot of firepower and fight exactly the kind of proxy war which China CV is going to encounter in future. What China CV going to face is properly some weak and unsophisticated enemies but distance away from mainland China remain the biggest enemy to her.

CV is needed to bridge that biggest enemy.

Originally Posted by Hendrik_2000

Carrier program is different . They have the budget and urgency to get it done fast. Specially in the area of SLOC China need to safe guard their blood line. Because China is increasingly dependent on raw material and trade to guarantee fast paced of economic growth and the stability of the governing regime .

I dont think that they really had that much urgency in refitting ex-varyag. they had the carrier for 8 years before seriously rebuilding the ship. Heck, they even waited until after the olympics to do it.

Originally Posted by bd popeye

In another forum a thread was posted about the PLAN Cv-16 . Naturally the haters appeared posting their usual nonsense & mis-information.. so I posted this,

BD popeye, that chart is meaningless regarding carriers. The US is the only nation that builds supercarriers. Where are they in that chart? what counts is technology and skilled workers and techniques, not the total tonnage.