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

[Iron Man]

Experience operating carrier strike groups, handling aircraft, honing one's carrier flight tempo, and the countless technicalities involved in maintaining a functioning carrier is of enormous benefit to a navy that wishes to possess some form of projecting power. By drawing on previous battle experiences and/or hard-learnt lessons through training, the Indian Navy could potentially offset whatever technological advantage the Chinese have (which isn't significant given Russia's support to India). There is also talk of India purchasing F-35s, but that would be detracting from our conversation regarding training and experience (rather than technical capability).

It's all well and good that India has experience operating aircraft carriers and it no doubt helps them.... operate carriers. But to claim that some way some how this translates into increasing the general effectiveness of the IN in some way OTHER than the actual contribution made by the carrier itself is something you have not at all demonstrated.

MODERATOR COMMENT
------------------------------------------

Personal attack removed.

Iron Man, read and follow th rules. Such personal attacks are not allowed. Consider this a warning.

 

[SinoSoldier]

It's all well and good that India has experience operating aircraft carriers and it no doubt helps them.... operate carriers. But to claim that some way some how this translates into increasing the general effectiveness of the IN in some way OTHER than the actual contribution made by the carrier itself is something you have not at all demonstrated.

Does not an effective carrier strike group contribute to the overall effectiveness of the navy? It's not like a carrier battle group operates independently (or has no relation to) other vessels.

Why would a carrier contribute strength in "another way"? Isn't that just a matter of semantics?

 

[Blitzo]

Does not an effective carrier strike group contribute to the overall effectiveness of the navy? It's not like a carrier battle group operates independently (or has no relation to) other vessels.

Why would a carrier contribute strength in "another way"? Isn't that just a matter of semantics?

For the sake of this discussion, I think it is a very real question as to just how "effectively" the IN operated their previous few carriers over the decades and what degree of competency and continued competency that experience has lent them.

I do of course believe that having some previous carrier experience is better than having none, but I think it is also important to not oversell just how much competency and experience previous years of operation actually confers.

I won't make a comment about how the IN's previous experience with carriers may have informed its operation of carriers today vis-a-vis the Chinese Navy operating Liaoning today with the ship being its first carrier, but I do think it is important to emphasize that not all "experience" is equal.

 

[SinoSoldier]

For the sake of this discussion, I think it is a very real question as to just how "effectively" the IN operated their previous few carriers over the decades and what degree of competency and continued competency that experience has lent them.

I do of course believe that having some previous carrier experience is better than having none, but I think it is also important to not oversell just how much competency and experience previous years of operation actually confers.

I won't make a comment about how the IN's previous experience with carriers may have informed its operation of carriers today vis-a-vis the Chinese Navy operating Liaoning today with the ship being its first carrier, but I do think it is important to emphasize that not all "experience" is equal.

For comparison's sake, having carrier ops experience in the first place is already a step up compared to the PLAN's lack thereof. Regardless of how "effective" the combat ops were, these expeditions would provide the IN with very indispensable knowledge of what to do or avoid (provided that the IN officers are competent and responsible enough to write proper reports).

 

[jobjed]

Does not an effective carrier strike group contribute to the overall effectiveness of the navy? It's not like a carrier battle group operates independently (or has no relation to) other vessels.

Why would a carrier contribute strength in "another way"? Isn't that just a matter of semantics?

Iron Man's argument isn't about the Indian Navy's "overall effectiveness". His argument is that you and Blackstone have no reason to assume that the IN and JMSDF have higher quality training than the PLAN.

Somehow, you went off on a tangent about carriers and made the argument that IN's carrier operations would enhance the overall quality of training for the rest of their navy. I, and Iron Man too, are confused by your assertion.

Yeah, sure, the IN has a longer history of carrier operations but why would that influence how well a sailor on the Delhi-class does his job? Or a sailor on their Kilo-class? Or a sailor on the Kolkata-class?

 

[SinoSoldier]

Iron Man's argument isn't about the Indian Navy's "overall effectiveness". His argument is that you and Blackstone have no reason to assume that the IN and JMSDF have higher quality training than the PLAN.

Somehow, you went off on a tangent about carriers and made the argument that IN's carrier operations would enhance the overall quality of training for the rest of their navy. I, and Iron Man too, are confused by your assertion.

Yeah, sure, the IN has a longer history of carrier operations but why would that influence how well a sailor on the Delhi-class does his job? Or a sailor on their Kilo-class? Or a sailor on the Kolkata-class?

I wasn't commenting on the "quality" of training. I was pointing out that IN's experience puts it at an advantage over the PLAN's nascent stage of carrier ops (and lack of combat experience in general).

IN doesn't just have a lead in carrier operations, but a lot of things (destroyers, frigates, use of missiles in both anti-ship roles and shore bombardment, gunboats, the list goes on and on) when it comes to combat history. My argument surrounding the INS Viraat was only focusing on that particular facet of their surface fleet, but similar assertions could be made elsewhere.

 

[vesicles]

I think the key is how one deals with "experience". If you simply go through the motion and simply do the same things day in and day out, then that experience doesn't mean anything. No matter how long you've been doing it, it's nothing. Experience only becomes "experience" when you learn from it, and more importantly, push further past your existing limits and keep pushing yourself to ever higher limits.

I honestly don't know why we are fixated on comparing the PLAN with the IN. However, I believe the question that we should ask should be "do we see progress with the IN CV ops throughout the years that they've had the CV's?" Has the IN been doing the same things all these years with their CV's? If we can determine progress with the IN CV's, then their CV experience should not be discounted.

Of course the next question is how to use your CV's properly. Just because you know how to use a piece of equipment, doesnt mean you know how to use it for your benefit. That means developing tactics to use it efficiently in combat. That means figuring out how to achieve optimal efficiency of the CV's in the modern combined arms situations, where the CV must be working together with other ships and planes in an Organic fashion. That also means figuring out ways to properly incorporate the CV's into your strategic planning to further your political and economic interests.

I'm not sure how we can judge the progress of the IN's CV ops and compare it with the CV-16. At this moment, why don't we just focus on how the PLAN is smoothly developing its own CV ops?

 

[Blitzo]

For comparison's sake, having carrier ops experience in the first place is already a step up compared to the PLAN's lack thereof. Regardless of how "effective" the combat ops were, these expeditions would provide the IN with very indispensable knowledge of what to do or avoid (provided that the IN officers are competent and responsible enough to write proper reports).

You're arguing that the IN's past carrier experience would be useful for their carrier programme going forwards, and that their past experience is still more experience than the Chinese Navy's carrier experience prior to Liaoning. I don't dispute that much, if at all.

However, how actually useful that past experience will be for the IN's short term, medium term and long term carrier programme and operation going forwards is the area of uncertainty and contention, especially if that short term, medium term and long term operation is compared to say the Chinese Navy, who despite having no prior carrier experience to Liaoning, may not proceed along with their carrier programme at the same rate in coming years as the IN due to a number of factors beyond mere past carrier experience but also differences in funding, organizational competency, procurement competency, source of relevant equipment and subsystems (domestic industrial capability), etc.



So yes, broadly speaking obviously having some past carrier experience is better than no experience, and having some past experience will obviously help one's future carrier operation as well.
But your previous posts have simplified the influence of past experience in too many ways, by not acknowledging that not all "experience" is equal, and also simplifies the matter too much when comparing the IN to the Chinese Navy by not factoring in a great number of other more institutional differences in competency, procurement, and industrial capability which are all very significant factors in a Navy's prospects for mastering carrier operations.


I personally don't want to make any call on which Navy "may" have an "advantage" in this domain going forwards, but I merely want to point out the many complex factors that have an influence on how either Navy may proceed and that all of these different factors should be considered... and to acknowledge that the utility of "past experience" on informing future carrier operation or giving one side more of an "advantage" than the other really depends on how useful that past experience and past competency was.

 

[SinoSoldier]

You're arguing that the IN's past carrier experience would be useful for their carrier programme going forwards, and that their past experience is still more experience than the Chinese Navy's carrier experience prior to Liaoning. I don't dispute that much, if at all.

However, how actually useful that past experience will be for the IN's short term, medium term and long term carrier programme and operation going forwards is the area of uncertainty and contention, especially if that short term, medium term and long term operation is compared to say the Chinese Navy, who despite having no prior carrier experience to Liaoning, may not proceed along with their carrier programme at the same rate in coming years as the IN due to a number of factors beyond mere past carrier experience but also differences in funding, organizational competency, procurement competency, source of relevant equipment and subsystems (domestic industrial capability), etc.

Yes, I fully agree that the PLAN may tread through the learning curve much faster than the IN (particularly due to the production of advanced trainers like the JL-9 & J-15S). I'm merely pointing out that, at this point, the IN holds an edge (after all, they've been doing this sort of thing for almost 29 years). I do think that having fought a war on the sea makes a difference in the maturation and refining of one's doctrine, however. This is where the IN stands out.

So yes, broadly speaking obviously having some past carrier experience is better than no experience, and having some past experience will obviously help one's future carrier operation as well.
But your previous posts have simplified the influence of past experience in too many ways, by not acknowledging that not all "experience" is equal, and also simplifies the matter too much when comparing the IN to the Chinese Navy by not factoring in a great number of other more institutional differences in competency, procurement, and industrial capability which are all very significant factors in a Navy's prospects for mastering carrier operations.

I wasn't doing a holistic comparison between the PLAN and IN (I apologize if my posts were suggestive of that). My focus was purely on the experience side of things and the head start that combat history would bring to Vikramaditya/Vikrant crews.

I personally don't want to make any call on which Navy "may" have an "advantage" in this domain going forwards, but I merely want to point out the many complex factors that have an influence on how either Navy may proceed and that all of these different factors should be considered... and to acknowledge that the utility of "past experience" on informing future carrier operation or giving one side more of an "advantage" than the other really depends on how useful that past experience and past competency was.

Of course, having more battle experience doesn't mean one necessarily will use that to the fullest advantage, but I don't think there is any recent historical example of an instance in which such prior experiences didn't matter. Your assertion would perfectly apply to a notional PLAN that has been operating in the SCS on combat missions for 20 years, but that's not the case here.

 

[Blitzo]

Yes, I fully agree that the PLAN may tread through the learning curve much faster than the IN (particularly due to the production of advanced trainers like the JL-9 & J-15S). I'm merely pointing out that, at this point, the IN holds an edge (after all, they've been doing this sort of thing for almost 29 years). I do think that having fought a war on the sea makes a difference in the maturation and refining of one's doctrine, however. This is where the IN stands out.

To be honest I'm not even sure if saying "at this point" would be a fair statement -- that is where my question about quality of experience/competency comes into play.

For example, how much of their past 29 years of their quality of experience is more fundamental, basic experience that cannot be caught up on quickly within a couple of years, and how much of it is more complex, higher end experience and competencies that they may not have even mastered?

I wasn't doing a holistic comparison between the PLAN and IN (I apologize if my posts were suggestive of that). My focus was purely on the experience side of things and the head start that combat history would bring to Vikramaditya/Vikrant crews.

I understand you weren't doing a holistic comparison between the two navies, however you were comparing how each Navy might progress with their carrier programmes and competencies, and mentioning the difference in "experience" like it may be a significant factor.

I'm saying that the difference in "experience" may be smaller than you believe, and that a number of other factors also come into play.

Of course, having more battle experience doesn't mean one necessarily will use that to the fullest advantage, but I don't think there is any recent historical example of an instance in which such prior experiences didn't matter. Your assertion would perfectly apply to a notional PLAN that has been operating in the SCS on combat missions for 20 years, but that's not the case here.

Yes, well again, no one is saying past experience doesn't matter.
But if one is trying to judge how much that experience will inform progress going forwards relative to another navy such as IN compared to the Chinese Navy, will depend very much on the quality of their past experience as well as the aforementioned different factors before.


In other words, I'm just pointing out that not all experience is equal and even past years or decades of experience should be put into context of other factors.