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

[SinoSoldier]

I'm not making any specific claims here, it was more to demonstrate the point that not all experience is be equal, and that less advanced experience or lower end competencies can potentially be caught up quite quickly relative to higher end capabilities.




Let's put it this way, 29 years of carrier experience in the Indian Navy is probably different in quality and competency to 29 years of carrier experience in the Russian Navy/Soviet Navy which is in turn different to 29 years of carrier experience in the Royal Navy, and in turn different to 29 years of carrier experience in the United States Navy.

So yeah, I think there very much is a reason to question the effectiveness and complexity of Indian carrier operations, because not all past "experience" is equal.

To question the "quality" or "usefulness" of their past experience would be appropriate only if the PLAN had a comparable quantity of experience to begin with. As of now, the PLAN does not have any major combat history, so in this regard the Indian Navy would definitely have some sort of lead (regardless of whether it's "good experience" or "bad experience").

That is somewhat debatable.

I think there could be a strong case to be made that high rates of certain kinds of accidents which occur may be reflective of an institutional lack of competency in certain areas that may translate to lack of competency in other related areas.


I personally wouldn't go as far as what yodello described regarding the IN, and I don't want to get into too big of a discussion about the overall Indian Armed Forces or even Indian Navy, but I would say that there are certain events and indicators that would cast some reasonable doubt as to just how competent certain aspects of their capabilities and experience are, and for the Navy I think the complex task of carrier operations is a reasonable one to look upon.

This is not to say they are incompetent, but rather that (again) the quality of experience and competency despite past decades of operating a carrier may not be quite extensive as the description suggests.

I think we should wait for official Indian Navy incident reports before jumping to either side of the fence. AFAIK the INS Sindhurakshak accident was mainly precipitated by overworked navy members (rather than a purely procedural or equipment deficiency).

 

[Blitzo]

To question the "quality" or "usefulness" of their past experience would be appropriate only if the PLAN had a comparable quantity of experience to begin with. As of now, the PLAN does not have any major combat history, so in this regard the Indian Navy would definitely have some sort of lead (regardless of whether it's "good experience" or "bad experience").

Umm no, even if we weren't comparing the IN with the Chinese Navy -- even if we were only talking about the IN by itself, for instance -- it should still be important to try to characterize the quality and competency of their past experience in whatever domain it is (carrier or otherwise).

I think we should wait for official Indian Navy incident reports before jumping to either side of the fence. AFAIK the INS Sindhurakshak accident was mainly precipitated by overworked navy members (rather than a purely procedural or equipment deficiency).

I don't think anyone is jumping to either side of the fence but rather it has been a small and gradual shift due to repeated similar incidents over recent years.

As for "overworked navy members" -- would that not be a procedural/organizational deficiency?

 

[Equation]

The MiG-29 has higher speeds than the J-15 and so it's more complicated to handle. The J-15 has a better thrust-to-weight ratio and less wing load. It is the easier plane, but it is also a larger aircraft and you need a larger vessel to accommodate it.

Higher speed with lighter a lighter aircraft meaning it's easier to launch than the bigger and heavier J-15 from a ski jump ramp point of view.

 

[Intrepid]

Higher speed with lighter a lighter aircraft meaning it's easier to launch than the bigger and heavier J-15 from a ski jump ramp point of view.

That is not true. MiG-29 needs a longer distance on deck to reach ramp speed and more time after airborne in the critical phase to gain climb speed.

 

[delft]

Higher speed with lighter a lighter aircraft meaning it's easier to launch than the bigger and heavier J-15 from a ski jump ramp point of view.

The right metrics are the Thrust/Weight ratio and the Minimum Control Speed. Flankers have stronger engines than Mig-29's. They also have a lower minimum control speed. After leaving the ski ramp at minimum control speed after an engine failure and dropping any external ordnance the aircraft must be able to accelerate to minimum flying speed and climb away. These matters determine the Maximum Take Off Weight for every launch. Of course in case of engine failure with single engine aircraft you just leave the office by the emergency exit.

 

[Deino]

Finally a few new images ... but still no paint

 

[SinoSoldier]

Umm no, even if we weren't comparing the IN with the Chinese Navy -- even if we were only talking about the IN by itself, for instance -- it should still be important to try to characterize the quality and competency of their past experience in whatever domain it is (carrier or otherwise).

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the importance of quality and competency of training. However, this discussion is centered around the IN vs the PLAN, in which the latter has no experience. No matter how one looks at it, the IN still has the lead.

As for "overworked navy members" -- would that not be a procedural/organizational deficiency?

Depends on what led to the workers having to labor that long. It could be an organizational defect or procedural mix-up but it could also very well simply be the brass ignoring laws & regulations. The latter doesn't necessarily relate to how well the IN trains or operates.

 

[Blitzo]

I'm not disagreeing with you regarding the importance of quality and competency of training. However, this discussion is centered around the IN vs the PLAN, in which the latter has no experience. No matter how one looks at it, the IN still has the lead.

I would agree that the IN definitely had a lead back in 2012 when the Chinese Navy first received Liaoning considering Chinese Navy carrier experience was literally zero and IN carrier experience was greater than zero.
However, now, near the end of 2016, there may or may not be a gap depending on how quickly both services have been able to capitalize on their new ships and airwings and pilots and deck crew in the last few years.


But my original issue was that I think you exaggerated the degree of competency of the IN's carrier experience without accompanying it by a massive disclaimer acknowledging that not all experience is equal (e.g.: 29 years of IN carrier experience isn't equal to 29 years of USN carrier experience).

Regardless of whether IN is being compared to the Chinese Navy or not, putting their experience in qualitative context (or at least trying to do so) is very important.

Depends on what led to the workers having to labor that long. It could be an organizational defect or procedural mix-up but it could also very well simply be the brass ignoring laws & regulations. The latter doesn't necessarily relate to how well the IN trains or operates.

Lol you if think a Navy's brass is ignoring laws and regulations is a good reflection for that Navy's organizational structure and operations?

 

[SinoSoldier]

I would agree that the IN definitely had a lead back in 2012 when the Chinese Navy first received Liaoning considering Chinese Navy carrier experience was literally zero and IN carrier experience was greater than zero.
However, now, near the end of 2016, there may or may not be a gap depending on how quickly both services have been able to capitalize on their new ships and airwings and pilots and deck crew in the last few years.


But my original issue was that I think you exaggerated the degree of competency of the IN's carrier experience without accompanying it by a massive disclaimer acknowledging that not all experience is equal (e.g.: 29 years of IN carrier experience isn't equal to 29 years of USN carrier experience).

Regardless of whether IN is being compared to the Chinese Navy or not, putting their experience in qualitative context (or at least trying to do so) is very important.

We've been circling the same argument for the past page or so. I do agree that quality has to be factored in when assessing training and operations. I also gave the benefit of the doubt regarding the PLAN's ability to accelerate their training faster than that of other naval powers (although the time Liaoning spends in port sort of counters that).

But take a look at the sheer numbers. The first IN carrier (INS Vikrant R-11) entered service in 1961. The second carrier (which I used as a reference due to its greater similarity with current Chinese CVs) entered service in 1987. That gives the IN 29-55 years of experience in addition to combat service (1971). No matter how vigorous PLAN training and operations are, four years are not going to bring the crew/pilots to the level of the IN.

We have yet to see Chinese aircrews conduct mock combat missiles (I don't think we've even witnessed the J-15 fire a single weapon), exercises in sea state 6 environments, and the sort.

Lol you if think a Navy's brass is ignoring laws and regulations is a good reflection for that Navy's organizational structure and operations?

The PLAN had its fair share of accidents (J-15 accidents, submarine disasters, SSBN radiation leaks, etc.). Are we to adopt the same kind of logic regarding the PLAN or is that reserved for the IN only?

 

[Blitzo]

We've been circling the same argument for the past page or so. I do agree that quality has to be factored in when assessing training and operations. I also gave the benefit of the doubt regarding the PLAN's ability to accelerate their training faster than that of other naval powers (although the time Liaoning spends in port sort of counters that).

But take a look at the sheer numbers. The first IN carrier (INS Vikrant R-11) entered service in 1961. The second carrier (which I used as a reference due to its greater similarity with current Chinese CVs) entered service in 1987. That gives the IN 29-55 years of experience in addition to combat service (1971). No matter how vigorous PLAN training and operations are, four years are not going to bring the crew/pilots to the level of the IN.

Oh I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point, because we really do not know how competent or incompetent the "level" of the IN's carrier operations really are.

We have yet to see Chinese aircrews conduct mock combat missiles (I don't think we've even witnessed the J-15 fire a single weapon), exercises in sea state 6 environments, and the sort.

You've been here as long as I have, we both know that absence of evidence does not equate to evidence of absence especially WRT the Chinese military.

The PLAN had its fair share of accidents (J-15 accidents, submarine disasters, SSBN radiation leaks, etc.). Are we to adopt the same kind of logic regarding the PLAN or is that reserved for the IN only?

The same logic would be applied across accidents for all navies.

Just for the record, I personally don't believe that the extent of accidents in the IN of the recent past are reflective of the severity of incompetency that Yodello suggested in the page or two back.

But you seem to be shifting between saying "accidents and incidents do not reflect the overall competency/organization of the Navy" and then saying "well the Chinese Navy has had accidents too".

My position on the matter of IN competency can be summed up in the last part of my reply #630:
"This is not to say they are incompetent, but rather that (again) the quality of experience and competency despite past decades of operating a carrier may not be quite extensive as the description suggests."