CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations

[Equation]

Actually, your response doesn't address Blackstone's question of training and combat experience. China may lead both Japan and India technologically & quantitatively now or in the future, but that won't make up for India's very extensive lead in carrier operations (not just in training, but also during war). IN and JMSDF both have exposure to training with foreign navies. That could make a huge difference in a conflict and could easily offset whatever hardware-pertinent advantage the PLAN has.

Yeah but IN has experience with only older obsolete fighters until recently updating to the Mig29K which is IMO less capable than the PLAN J-15. Japan don't even have fixed wing aircraft on their so called "destroyer" air craft carrier to even play with. So neither one of these two JV squads are yet at the level of sophistication in "training" as one might have thought.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Training with foreign navies could offset hardware advantages that the PLAN has? We are comparing capabilities of individual navies, not how well they operate with other navies.

Experience & skills from frequent contact with foreign navies benefit the JMSDF and IN on an individual level.

Also, India's experience with carriers translates into proficiency with carriers, not a superior navy in general.

The same principle applies to just about any aspect of a navy, but when you add those up they become significant, especially when carriers play a major role in naval force projection.

 

[SinoSoldier]

Yeah but IN has experience with only older obsolete fighters until recently updating to the Mig29K which is IMO less capable than the PLAN J-15. Japan don't even have fixed wing aircraft on their so called "destroyer" air craft carrier to even play with. So neither one of these two JV squads are yet at the level of sophistication in "training" as one might have thought.

You are conflating training and technological sophistication; although both contribute to naval capabilities, they are distinct areas. Experience can easily transgress technological boundaries (especially when the INS Viraat is a ski-jump carrier just like the CV-16/17) and thus much of the skills and experience obtained while operating Harriers still apply to a MiG-29 or a T-50K.

 

[Iron Man]

Experience & skills from frequent contact with foreign navies benefit the JMSDF and IN on an individual level.

I don't see how this vague and tenuous benefit of occasionally training with foreign navies can have a significant enough effect on the overall quality of a navy to overcome hardware inferiority. The PLAN also routinely trains with foreign navies, so either way this point is totally moot.

The same principle applies to just about any aspect of a navy, but when you add those up they become significant, especially when carriers play a major role in naval force projection.

I'm not sure what principle you are referring to. We are talking about experience with carriers translating into proficiency with carriers, which does not translate into proficiency with destroyers, subs, or minesweepers or any other vessel.

 

[Equation]

You are conflating training and technological sophistication; although both contribute to naval capabilities, they are distinct areas. Experience can easily transgress technological boundaries (especially when the INS Viraat is a ski-jump carrier just like the CV-16/17) and thus much of the skills and experience obtained while operating Harriers still apply to a MiG-29 or a T-50K.

There's a difference between a Harrier and MiG-29. The same sailors that learned the skills in the Harrier can not be translated easily to the MiG-29. It's a whole new set of skills that have to be learn again. As a result the Indian sailors so called experiences with the Harriers doesn't make them superior to the Liaoning's sailors working with the J-15s does it? As a matter of fact the Indians are still learning to handle their MiG-29s just as the PLAN are doing with their J-15.

 

[Intrepid]

As a matter of fact the Indians are still learning to handle their MiG-29s just as the PLAN are doing with their J-15.

The Indians have experience with CATOBAR (1961 - 1987; Sea Hawk and Breguet Alize ), ski jump (1987 - 2016; Sea Harrier) and STOBAR (since 2013; MiG-29).

 

[Equation]

It don't matter, Indian carrier program is nowhere near the level of sophistication in both training, building, and developing fix wing aircrafts and ships with future catobar in either steam catapult or EMAL system when compare it China. Remember what I always like to say....IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PROGRAM.

 

[Blackstone]

It don't matter, Indian carrier program is nowhere near the level of sophistication in both training, building, and developing fix wing aircrafts and ships with future catobar in either steam catapult or EMAL system when compare it China. Remember what I always like to say....IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PROGRAM.

What makes you say Indian carrier training isn't near the level of China? Kindly present some evidence of your claim.

 

[Equation]

What makes you say Indian carrier training isn't near the level of China? Kindly present some evidence of your claim.

Did you see any Indian research on either steam or EMAL catobar system lately? Did you see any Indian navy sailor launch any Su-33 type from their carrier? No? I thought so.

 

[manqiangrexue]

What makes you say Indian carrier training isn't near the level of China? Kindly present some evidence of your claim.

Oh, now you wanna talk about evidence? Why don't you give some evidence that China's navy isn't as well-trained as Japan's or that it will take a "generation" (whatever that means, 25 years?) to catch up?