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

[Tyloe]

He does make a fair point at least here. The Indian Navy is proficient in night ops, and perhaps higher operational tempo. Which the PLAN isnt fully skilled in, according to available Liaoning footage and photos. Current training for pilots need more time perhaps to around comissioning 001A.

India's limited defence industry is another matter however, heavily relying on foreign imports including any future EMALS.

 

[Intrepid]

The China-India-discussion is off-topic, I think. A part of the Inian development is done in Russia and actually at the Syrian coast. India gives the money and the Russians do the work. Win-win for both.

 

[PanAsian]

He does make a fair point at least here. The Indian Navy is proficient in night ops, and perhaps higher operational tempo. Which the PLAN isnt fully skilled in, according to available Liaoning footage and photos. Current training for pilots need more time perhaps to around comissioning 001A.

India's limited defence industry is another matter however, heavily relying on foreign imports including any future EMALS.

While I am all for self-sufficiency there is a lot of benefit to being part of a military alliance which also shares military technology, whether it is hub and spoke like the US and everyone else, or spread more evenly like the Europeans.

In addition to the economies of scale in R&D and acquisition there is also the real life testing without having to be directly involved in conflict, for example Israel and its troubles serve as great tests and low cost stimuli to the US for developing and refining many US military technologies.

 

[Blackstone]

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.

I asked you for evidence on your unsupported claim that India carrier training isn't, and I quote, "near the level of China," and you you came back with the above. So, are you saying steam and EMAL catapult R&D equates to Chinese carrier training? Also, are you aware of the fact Indian aircraft carrier Vikramadita was deployed as an operational CV in May, 2014, carrying up to 26 Mig-29K? Fanbois not withstanding, reasonable people would call that carrier training. Unless, of course, you think Su-33s provide carrier training, but Mig-29Ks don't...?

So, Equation, given the above, do you still maintain Indian carrier training isn't "near the level of China?" If so, kindly provide evidence- real evidence and not redirection or obfuscation.

 

[Blackstone]

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?

I'm probably wasting my time, but just in case you're marginally open minded, I'll try and reason with you. Kindly consider these points:

1. The original topic was Equation's claim Indian carrier training wasn't "near the level of China." It had nothing to do with Japan
2. It's well accepted in the civilized world those who make assertions must provide evidence, and the greater the claim, the greater the required evidence
3. Given the two points above, your question would have been better received if it was "why can't you take the OP at face value?" or "Why can't you accept claims without sufficient evidence?"

 

[manqiangrexue]

I asked you for evidence on your unsupported claim that India carrier training isn't, and I quote, "near the level of China," and you you came back with the above. So, are you saying steam and EMAL catapult R&D equates to Chinese carrier training? Also, are you aware of the fact Indian aircraft carrier Vikramadita was deployed as an operational CV in May, 2014, carrying up to 26 Mig-29K? Fanbois not withstanding, reasonable people would call that carrier training. Unless, of course, you think Su-33s provide carrier training, but Mig-29Ks don't...?

So, Equation, given the above, do you still maintain Indian carrier training isn't "near the level of China?" If so, kindly provide evidence- real evidence and not redirection or obfuscation.

Yeah? What exactly did they do in 2014? Did they strike anybody? Did that anybody have any defenses? Air force? Another carrier? "Operational" carrying 26 small aircraft on a small carrier doesn't mean anything. What did they do and who did they do it against?

I'm probably wasting my time, but just in case you're marginally open minded, I'll try and reason with you. Kindly consider these points:

1. The original topic was Equation's claim Indian carrier training wasn't "near the level of China." It had nothing to do with Japan
2. It's well accepted in the real world those who make assertions must provide evidence, and the greater the claim, the greater the required evidence
3. Given the two points above, your question would have been better received if it was "why can't you take the OP at face value?" or "Why can't you accept claims without sufficient evidence?"

Yes, you are absolutely wasting your time because you didn't answer my question at all. My question is "What evidence do you have that Japan's naval training exceeds China's and what evidence do you have that that difference is by 1 generation or more?" And you answered me with how Equation didn't provide any evidence for his India claim. I quite understand that he didn't provide evidence. My challenge was to you for making claims without evidence, then asking others to provide evidence for their claims. Off topic and wasting time, just like you always do, but at least you realized it this time.

 

[kwaigonegin]

It's difficult to 'quantify' training as long as people do they jobs right. Unless we have access to the metrics the IN gives to carrier ops difficult to judge from where we are.

With THAT being said I can certainly say from anecdotal observation that IN personnels are NOT up to par with the world standards but they are certainly more experience than PLAN in carrier ops for the sole reason they have done it much longer. I cannot comment on PLAN because I have ZERO data or experiences with them in terms of training other than what I read here and there.

Training goes hand in hand with discipline. A better question to ask and quantify if are IN personnels as discipline as other foremost world's navy? I know that just through observation JMSDF personnels are highly disciplined and highly trained as well.

The Isreali Navy as part of IDF are extremely disciplined as well. While their Navy is tiny compared to the big boys their training is top notch.
In terms of training I would rank JMSDF and ID (Israel not India) as the most highly trained and discipline navies in the world. Singapore would rank up there as well.

 

[Blackstone]

Yes, you are absolutely wasting your time...

Straight from the horse's mouth, and so noted. I will stop wasting my time with you on this topic.

 

[vesicles]

It's difficult to 'quantify' training as long as people do they jobs right. Unless we have access to the metrics the IN gives to carrier ops difficult to judge from where we are.

With THAT being said I can certainly say from anecdotal observation that IN personnels are NOT up to par with the world standards but they are certainly more experience than PLAN in carrier ops for the sole reason they have done it much longer. I cannot comment on PLAN because I have ZERO data or experiences with them in terms of training other than what I read here and there.

Training goes hand in hand with discipline. A better question to ask and quantify if are IN personnels as discipline as other foremost world's navy? I know that just through observation JMSDF personnels are highly disciplined and highly trained as well.

The Isreali Navy as part of IDF are extremely disciplined as well. While their Navy is tiny compared to the big boys their training is top notch.
In terms of training I would rank JMSDF and ID (Israel not India) as the most highly trained and discipline navies in the world. Singapore would rank up there as well.

I agree with your assessment. I agree that discipline is key to training. Based on what we have seen so far with the PLAN in terms of how well they keep their ships clean and maintained and their methodical ways of developing/testing their weapons, I would like to say that the PLAN should be up there with the best in terms of discipline. In fact, the PLA has been accused of being too disciplined (people had questioned whether the PLA personnel can make their decisions or simply following orders).

Now, whether or not discipline can be directly correlated with training, and then correlated with capability? that would be a question that no one can answer at the moment. As effective training also depends on experience. And in this department, the PLAN does lag behind. The CV-16 is after all their first CV. With that said, I honest don't believe that the PLAN is doing it blind. they can get plenty help from the Russians who have decades of experience operating CVs. I think there is also some info suggesting that the PLAN sent personnel to Brazil to get training. So they are not starting from scratch.

And based on the photos/video clips of CV-16 that we have seen so far, they have been doing it correctly. Our own Popeye with decades of CV experience seems to be satisfied with what he has seen on the CV-16. So their training has been effective. I think that is all what we can say at the moment. Comparing the PLAN with the Indian Navy is, IMHO, a complete waste of time. The only way to find out whose training is more effective to direct conflict, which none of us wants to see.

 

[manqiangrexue]

Straight from the horse's mouth, and so noted. I will stop wasting my time with you on this topic.

And most importantly, to stop wasting my time and the time of other readers. The correct response in your situation should be, "I have made an unsubstantiated claim about the training of the Chinese and Japanese navies with no evidence to back it and then I tried to move the subject on to other people not providing enough evidence in their claims to try to cover my own act. I am sorry for wasting other people's time and I will try to stop, though it is an old habit." But that's only if you're "marginally open-minded."