PLAN Carrier Strike Group and Airwing
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Did you guys noticed that this thread started by Jeff is almost 10 FRICKING years old?!!
This should be world record by itself!
Yes, have been discussing every conceivable aspect of this for ten years.
I started this thread one week after joining SD back in 2005.
Ultra
Junior Member
LOL, if this thread is your baby then he would be going to high school soon! How time flies!
Also, Its pretty amazing isn't it? China has gone from no carrier to one CSG and building 3 more! From pure speculation (and fiction) to reality. From importing fighters and carriers (there were numerous of them most of them abandon, scrapped or turn into casino) to everything self-produced.
I think in the next 20 years China would probably achieve hardware parity with USN - both in term of quality and number. The real problem would be the "software side" - which is the training, strategy and experience. Knowing how to produce doesn't mean they will know how to use them and use them well. PLAN would need to find more partners to cross-train and learn from the experience of others, and so far it has proven quite difficult to acquire this sort of knowledge. Brazil seems to be the only one willing to teach Chinese the art of carrier operation.
But I think in the future, China would find more partners to learn from. The russians, the spanish, the italians, even the french. I don't think they will ever learn it from the british, japanese, indians or americans.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Unless the Americans significantly cut their carrier numbers, the PLAN won't achieve numerical parity even in 20 years time.
The USN built up its fleet over several decades of continuous (over) investment. Even if Chinese annual defence spending overtake the US, which in itself is highly unlikely in that 20 year timeframe given the size of the GDPs of the two now, and how much more as a percentage of GDP America spends on defence, it will be some time yet before the cumulative effect starts to change in China's favour.
I also find all the emphasis on 'software' to be highly dubious. Not because training and experience isn't important, but because those are largely subjective measurements that are hard if not impossible to objectively quantify and compare.
It seems to be a general trend in the west that as objective measures start to go against them when comparing against China, subjective measures suddenly seem to take on significantly more weight, often overnight.
I also find many western observers and commentators to either hint at, or directly link political systems with subjective measures, often with a hint of a racial component thrown in as well for good measure.
Just seems too much like goal post shifting and masking of uglier motivations for my taste.
---
Edit, not that I ascribe such attributes to you Ultra, just the way 'mainstream' western media and defence publications operate.
The USN built up its fleet over several decades of continuous (over) investment. Even if Chinese annual defence spending overtake the US, which in itself is highly unlikely in that 20 year timeframe given the size of the GDPs of the two now, and how much more as a percentage of GDP America spends on defence, it will be some time yet before the cumulative effect starts to change in China's favour.
I also find all the emphasis on 'software' to be highly dubious. Not because training and experience isn't important, but because those are largely subjective measurements that are hard if not impossible to objectively quantify and compare.
It seems to be a general trend in the west that as objective measures start to go against them when comparing against China, subjective measures suddenly seem to take on significantly more weight, often overnight.
I also find many western observers and commentators to either hint at, or directly link political systems with subjective measures, often with a hint of a racial component thrown in as well for good measure.
Just seems too much like goal post shifting and masking of uglier motivations for my taste.
---
Edit, not that I ascribe such attributes to you Ultra, just the way 'mainstream' western media and defence publications operate.
Wolf, there is nothing subjective about training regiment, damage control planning and exercises, etc.
They are well defined sciences within Naval doctrine and must be learned and then applied over years (just like the other items you are describing) to be taken advantage of.
Now, I expect the Chinese will learn these things. But in order to do so, they have to spend the time with all of their new equipment at sea, doing exercises amongst themselves and with other nations, just like the US has done. In so doing they will make the investment and reap the rewards. but it takes just that...investment and experience.
It is sort of like developing a catapult (name the science...doesn't matter). You may produce a working model on land. But then you are going to spend several years working with it in all types of conditions and with all types of different loads before you ever go to sea with it. And then you will repeat a lot of that (albeit in a shorter time frame) at sea before you ever go operational with it.
With new catapult systems, the US spends 5-6 years testing before they take it onto a new carrier, and then 1-2 years before that first carrier is commissioned.
The same type of thing holds true for naval expertise through operational training, damage control, etc.
The Chinese are several years into this already and gaining a lot of expertise. A great example was the recent pictures of the water tight door accident in heavy seas. Some of these things you do not learn very fast because they do not happen very often.
But the PLAN is well on its way and will amass the experience and expertise over time.
They are well defined sciences within Naval doctrine and must be learned and then applied over years (just like the other items you are describing) to be taken advantage of.
Now, I expect the Chinese will learn these things. But in order to do so, they have to spend the time with all of their new equipment at sea, doing exercises amongst themselves and with other nations, just like the US has done. In so doing they will make the investment and reap the rewards. but it takes just that...investment and experience.
It is sort of like developing a catapult (name the science...doesn't matter). You may produce a working model on land. But then you are going to spend several years working with it in all types of conditions and with all types of different loads before you ever go to sea with it. And then you will repeat a lot of that (albeit in a shorter time frame) at sea before you ever go operational with it.
With new catapult systems, the US spends 5-6 years testing before they take it onto a new carrier, and then 1-2 years before that first carrier is commissioned.
The same type of thing holds true for naval expertise through operational training, damage control, etc.
The Chinese are several years into this already and gaining a lot of expertise. A great example was the recent pictures of the water tight door accident in heavy seas. Some of these things you do not learn very fast because they do not happen very often.
But the PLAN is well on its way and will amass the experience and expertise over time.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Hey Jeff, as I stressed in my post, I am not saying training and experience doesn't matter.
The problem I have is how do you subjectively measure and compare different training methodology and experiences? Especially since so little is actually know about PLAN training doctrine and procedures?
Whenever people bring up 'software', the unspoken assumption, is that Chinese training is somehow just inferior.
By what objective, measurable and verifiable means is that determination made?
Often, no thought has been given to such questions as it is just almost taken as given. But when people do try to defend that position, invariably you get self-reinforcing circular reasoning being applied. So people will bring up things like 'naval tradition', history, 'combat' experience etc.
The problem with that is tradition and history often come with its own baggage.
In organisations and institutions with long heritages and proud histories, often things are done in a certain way not because it is the most efficient and most effective method, but because it has always been so.
Some of the biggest names in business have fallen to upstart new firms who dared to think outside of the box and avoided conventional wisdom and orthodox methods.
Before anyone gets too excited, I am not suggesting that the USN is some hidebound dinosaur, merely that there is no objective way of determining who's training methods are the best.
All we can infer from the available information and evidence is that the Chinese take their training very seriously. They built a life sized carrier replica on land to try and make training as realistic as possible, and they created a dedicated carrier training centre for their pilots.
There is a great deal that can only be learnt when the PLAN has a full carrier air wing out at sea on their carrier. But if the PLAN apply the same kind of dedication and thoroughness when they are out at sea as they seem to do on land, there is no reason to think they will not make the very most out of their experiences at sea and develop top quality training material and programs for their carrier pilots and crew.s
The problem I have is how do you subjectively measure and compare different training methodology and experiences? Especially since so little is actually know about PLAN training doctrine and procedures?
Whenever people bring up 'software', the unspoken assumption, is that Chinese training is somehow just inferior.
By what objective, measurable and verifiable means is that determination made?
Often, no thought has been given to such questions as it is just almost taken as given. But when people do try to defend that position, invariably you get self-reinforcing circular reasoning being applied. So people will bring up things like 'naval tradition', history, 'combat' experience etc.
The problem with that is tradition and history often come with its own baggage.
In organisations and institutions with long heritages and proud histories, often things are done in a certain way not because it is the most efficient and most effective method, but because it has always been so.
Some of the biggest names in business have fallen to upstart new firms who dared to think outside of the box and avoided conventional wisdom and orthodox methods.
Before anyone gets too excited, I am not suggesting that the USN is some hidebound dinosaur, merely that there is no objective way of determining who's training methods are the best.
All we can infer from the available information and evidence is that the Chinese take their training very seriously. They built a life sized carrier replica on land to try and make training as realistic as possible, and they created a dedicated carrier training centre for their pilots.
There is a great deal that can only be learnt when the PLAN has a full carrier air wing out at sea on their carrier. But if the PLAN apply the same kind of dedication and thoroughness when they are out at sea as they seem to do on land, there is no reason to think they will not make the very most out of their experiences at sea and develop top quality training material and programs for their carrier pilots and crew.s
Ultra
Junior Member
Just out of curiousity.... what's this "water tight door accident" you are refering to?