CV-17 Shandong (002 carrier) Thread I ...News, Views and operations
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
- Status
Intrepid
Major
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
I have been thinking about this for a while. I think we're lumping carrier operations experience in a way that is too broad. The IN has extensive training operating MiG-29K and Harrier off of the Gorshkov class carrier and the PLAN is quickly developing experience operating J-15 from enhanced Kuznetsov class carriers. Those are not the same and they cannot be considered to be the same. Superior equipment cannot be factored out and completely separated from training because what are you trained on?? Skills that you learned on older equipment may be useless or built-in to the new avionics of more advanced jets. Tactics that you learned to use against inferior foes might make you easy prey for a technologically-superior opponent. If you train by beating up children every day, it will never prepare you to fight someone who is much larger, stronger, faster, who trains himself by without direct combat (maybe by striking a hard bag and running for miles) even though you may have "combat experience" and he doesn't.
Last edited:
I am not in the military but in IT and I am long enough in the industry to learn that number of years do not translate to the right experience or is embedded into the system. While you get better at hard skills, the challenge is passing such skills and lessons learned to the organisation and codifying it in organisation memory. Otherwise you have a bunch of cynical experienced personnel who will keep their knowledge to themselves and it dies with them. So the question would be whether the IN have the process to learn as an organisation from the experience with their aircraft carrier in the same way as building navy ships. The CMMI (Carnegie Maturity Model Integrated) is a good framework to describe this. We can see that with every experience the PLN constantly moves forward. Mistakes will happen but it will not be repeated.
Equation
Lieutenant General
That's because it's an inferior plane. Now what about ships radars and sonars? The Liaoning is far more sophisticated in that department than the IN. Therefore it takes a far more discipline crew to train and maintain such a more complex system.
Intrepid
Major
That is an other question and this thread is not the right place for comparison of Chinese and Indian aircraft carriers. Start a new thread, give me the link, and I will answer.
We are completely off topic - for a while. We should stop this here.
Equation
Lieutenant General
No it's not. It is all part of the carrier system in regards to how well the carrier crew are train as a whole and such from the pilots, to the maintenance crew, avionics personnel, weapons people, marines, doctors and nurses, cooks, ship maintenance and ALL kinds of specialists personnel that comes with it. The bottom line of my argument is that since the Liaoning is a far more sophisticated carrier system than any of the IN ever possessed therefore how is it that the Indian sailors are "better" due to their "longer carrier experiences" with a far more inferior carrier system than the Liaoning?
There isn't a J-15 factory either. There are Flanker factories. But modernizing Su-33's design might have been thought to expensive.
- Status