PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

The SCS would be a good place for the PLAN to practice it's CVBG's. Most likely, it will be the other claimants of the SCS that get involved in low level cat and mouse stuff. Even if the USN gets involved, it will not be anything close to high-intensity stuff. The Chinese CVBG's will have the opportunity to warm up and climb the learning curve in its own pace.

They have to get some real world experience somewhere. The SCS would be a good place to start. It's not that far from the mainland. So if things get ugly, back-up won't be too far away. Where else can they go?

vesicles said:

The SCS would be a good place for the PLAN to practice it's CVBG's. Most likely, it will be the other claimants of the SCS that get involved in low level cat and mouse stuff. Even if the USN gets involved, it will not be anything close to high-intensity stuff. The Chinese CVBG's will have the opportunity to warm up and climb the learning curve in its own pace.

They have to get some real world experience somewhere. The SCS would be a good place to start. It's not that far from the mainland. So if things get ugly, back-up won't be too far away. Where else can they go?

Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "practice".

I think they would only send a CSG to the SCS for training if they were intending on demonstrating larger scale operations in a very complex environment with a lot of civilian shipping and aircraft interspersed among many regional nations -- i.e.: to send a message or to respond to provocation. For such training I imagine they'd only need the scale of the SCS if they wanted large scale fleet exercises. Exercises involving only a single CSG could conceivably be done in waters closer to China's shores.
But even then, we have seen in recent years that the Navy has preferred to send large fleet training formations (such as Maneuver 5) to the ECS and beyond, instead of the SCS. I imagine that most major CSG exercises will also be sent east instead of south.

That's because the SCS is still a relatively crowded area with lots of listening posts and aircraft and ships, not to mention it is becoming increasingly crowded with submarines. Better to conduct standard training elsewhere instead in areas less crowded and only deploy large scale exercises there if it is in response to provocation.

Bltizo said:

Deceptive title. Professor Chu obviously meant it in the sense that a carrier would only really be deployed there in the context of (or in response to) continuing perceived US challenges.

Click to expand...

Wouldn't the initial few step would be to gear towards some sort of sustained sortie and night operations? Is there any evidence that this is happening? Inserting a CVG into an area without such capabilities would just be presence.

Brumby said:

Wouldn't the initial few step would be to gear towards some sort of sustained sortie and night operations? Is there any evidence that this is happening? Inserting a CVG into an area without such capabilities would just be presence.

Click to expand...

I imagine that it goes without saying, that the professor's suggestion for sending Liaoning to the SCS would be dependent on the ship and its aircrew reaching a certain state of operational readiness.
If you're asking what state of operational readiness Liaoning is at right now, we obviously have no answer for that. The last pictures and videos received were from a few months ago and even from those we do not know if they deliberately kept out certain operations or training that they might have wanted to hide.

But overall I think this entire article has been misconstrued.
I think the professor is simply saying that the SCS will remain an area of interest for the Chinese Navy and its vessels, including its aircraft carrier(s), and that aircraft carriers may potentially be sent to the SCS in response to US challenges in the future.
The article also mentions at the beginning "once the second ship is fully operational"). Using common sense, one would understand that by the time 001A is fully operational then CV16 Liaoning would also have been fully operational for an even longer amount of time.
Even if the "second ship is fully operational" part of the article was left out, it would be sensible for us to assume that the professor would've meant that a carrier would only be deployed if the carrier was at a state of acceptable rediness.

He's obviously not advocating the Navy send Liaoning into the SCS without the crew and airwing and escorts reaching a state of acceptable readiness, in an unprovoked manner. That would be stupid and illogical.
Let's give the guy the benefit of doubt.

Bltizo said:

I imagine that it goes without saying, that the professor's suggestion for sending Liaoning to the SCS would be dependent on the ship and its aircrew reaching a certain state of operational readiness.
If you're asking what state of operational readiness Liaoning is at right now, we obviously have no answer for that. The last pictures and videos received were from a few months ago and even from those we do not know if they deliberately kept out certain operations or training that they might have wanted to hide.

But overall I think this entire article has been misconstrued.
I think the professor is simply saying that the SCS will remain an area of interest for the Chinese Navy and its vessels, including its aircraft carrier(s), and that aircraft carriers may potentially be sent to the SCS in response to US challenges in the future.
The article also mentions at the beginning "once the second ship is fully operational"). Using common sense, one would understand that by the time 001A is fully operational then CV16 Liaoning would also have been fully operational for an even longer amount of time.
Even if the "second ship is fully operational" part of the article was left out, it would be sensible for us to assume that the professor would've meant that a carrier would only be deployed if the carrier was at a state of acceptable rediness.

He's obviously not advocating the Navy send Liaoning into the SCS without the crew and airwing and escorts reaching a state of acceptable readiness, in an unprovoked manner. That would be stupid and illogical.
Let's give the guy the benefit of doubt.

Click to expand...

I did not read that article. I was going on the basis of comments which seem to suggest that the readiness state for deployment was a present state rather than some future state which is likely some time away.

Higgle said:

Gentlemen, I present to you my first post-- and an update on the Type 001A under construction.

Courtesy of Big Cat.

Click to expand...

Where are those Korean news channel?! Their pictures are more clearer

Brumby said:

I did not read that article. I was going on the basis of comments which seem to suggest that the readiness state for deployment was a present state rather than some future state which is likely some time away.

Click to expand...

Fair enough.

Though I think even the possiblity of that suggestion should've rung some alarm bells.

asif iqbal said:

A carrier is for power projection using it in your back yard is probably not the optimised use for a carrier on a 24/7 basis

Having said that I can see the use but then China needs more carriers

Click to expand...

Sure, but which one? Island reclamation base "carrier" or the metal kind?

Having said that I can see the use but then China needs more carriers

Click to expand...

The book has been written by USN which has often been tasked with projecting power into other countries like Libya in 2011. It actually complains about anti access/ area denial armaments that would make such power projection difficult. It is for the medium term impossible that China would practice that form of of power projection if only because it will not be by far the strongest naval power in the World as USN has been since 1930?
After that there are political considerations.

delft said:

The book has been written by USN which has often been tasked with projecting power into other countries like Libya in 2011. It actually complains about anti access/ area denial armaments that would make such power projection difficult. It is for the medium term impossible that China would practice that form of of power projection if only because it will not be by far the strongest naval power in the World as USN has been since 1930?
After that there are political considerations.

Click to expand...

In my view, the immediate preoccupation with carrier operation is simply to ramp up sortie rates as part of the learning curve. This means working through the processes and operations through more sustained rates and cycle them through different sea states and weather. The only way to learn and improve is do lots of practice.