PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Bltizo said:

So what you're saying is that you believe the PLAN are keeping liaoning at dock because they think land based training is at this stage a viable substitute for sea based experience, or something of that sort?

Because I think that is a very unlikely to be true. Going out to sea is the best form of training there is, I do not think it is worth disputing that. The PLAN recognizes this thankfully, otherwise they would not be sending ships out constantly to Aden and rotating personnel there, or doing more open ocean exercises.

Click to expand...

Some said that by not going to sea, PLAN sailors forget their training. That's an implication that the sailors are hanging around doing nothing while the ship is in dock. What I am saying is that's not true.

Bltizo said:

The more likely scenario is that the PLAN would prefer to send liaoning out to sea more often, but at this stage of their development in naval aviation they are unable to, either because they are paying it safe or maybe constantly absorbing the lessons of every excursion, or maybe due to equipment issues, or any other number of possible contingencies that may have popped up during their exercises and training runs which they hadn't considered before. This is their first carrier after all, and it has only been a year and a half since it was commissioned.

Click to expand...

Obviously, something is preventing PLAN to send Liaoning out to sea more often. Note that this is not the same as not training.

Bltizo said:

Also, it is probably worth mentioning that we don't know how comprehensive the land based simulators are. Sure we have a ski jump on a airfield with the outline of liaoning's deck, and there is the wuhan mock up, but we cannot anywhere near confidently say the PLAN has a land based training facility which is comprehensive enough to replace what sea based experience can provide, partly because we don't know how competent they are at operating the carrier at this point in the first place.

Click to expand...

They have facilities for damage control.

Bltizo said:

Well, on the occasions when the ship was available the crew may not have been due to a necessity to retrain them or perhaps for them to deliver reports, etc. That would technically be considered part of the training cycle, I suppose, and it is a necessary stage they will have to do.
Also, I don't think we can quite say when liaoning was "available," given we can't see into the ship'sinternal status.

Click to expand...

By available, I mean when the ship is not sent back to dry dock.

Bltizo said:

I think that means the ship or crew simply are not experienced enough to go out to sea as often as they would like. There are certain accepted norms for sea going durations (accepting risk of real sea based experience not withstanding), and I think we shouldn't shy away from the fact that the PLAN aren't there yet.

Click to expand...

The point is that by not being out at sea, the training is still on going. The crew may not get experience on daily maintenance, but they should be gaining valuable lessons in other subjects such as damage control.

Engineer said:

Some said that by not going to sea, PLAN sailors forget their training. That's an implication that the sailors are hanging around doing nothing while the ship is in dock. What I am saying is that's not true.

Click to expand...

I see, well obviously I disagree with whoever said that first part: being on land doesn't mean they will forget their training, and obviously they are doing something useful back on land, so we agree in that respect.

I think we disagree on the points of going out to sea being the most effective way to gain experience and to train overall (PLAN may not be at the point where they can confidently do that), as well as how effectively land based training can substitute real at sea experience.

Obviously, something is preventing PLAN to send Liaoning out to sea more often. Note that this is not the same as not training.

Click to expand...

I agree with this.
Part of the reason for not going to see as often may be equipment, part of it may simply be the reality of operating a new warship as well as a new type of warship.

Training involves multiple steps, which includes the practical execution of an exercise, the digesting and analysis and learning from the execution, and the subsequent learning via the experience.

For a highly complex piece of warship like a carrier, and for a nation that has had no prior experience with carriers let alone fixed wing sea based aviation, I suspect they will spend a greater proportion of their time in the second and third stage rather than the first, to absorb as much as they can from going out to sea as rarely as possible to maximise and to advance the lessons which every new sea going excursion can provide (that is both the most efficient way to squeeze as much data from exercises as possible, as well as to minimize exposure of crew to what would be initially new conditions which may prove dangerous). That will probably characterise the next few years of their early gestating carrier operations. Once they have a stable operating book to go by, we will see more sea going exercises to give the crew real experience.

Originally Posted by Jeff Head
The people of whom I spoke are not "self appointed" experts. They are men who have spent many, many more years on carriers operating them, being trained to do so, and then training others to do the same.

Their "opinon," in the form of their comments and advise is as valuable as gold to any program that is just getting started as the Chinese are. Anyone wanting to understand carrier operations and what it takes to progress in them, or to improve them, would be foolish and completely self-absorbed and immature to the point of being negligent to either take lightly what such people share in this regard, or to somehow think they "know better."

Click to expand...

Thank you very much Jeff for those kind words. ..I'm no expert by the way. I just have the benefit of "having been there and done that"

Air Force Brat said:

Gazing into the BD Popeye crystal ball oh dark lord, what duz this meaneth, pray-telleth?????

Dry Dock????? hummm?????? something below the waterline, rudder, screws, shaft seals?????? any thought and or pontifications.....

Click to expand...

I stated..

bd popeye said:

Any navy ship on this planet visits the shipyard for minor or major upkeep maintenance from time to time. CV-16 is no different. As an example the USN sends it's CVNs to the shipyard after all major deployments. And when a ship is in its home port shipyard workers are always on board doing whatever it is they do.

Click to expand...

I think it's time for maintenance. The've been operational for some time now.. over two years. Time to make any repairs necessary , scrape the hull and get back to sea.

Engineer said:

The point is that by not being out at sea, the training is still on going. The crew may not get experience on daily maintenance, but they should be gaining valuable lessons in other subjects such as damage control.

Click to expand...

Very true. In the case of the USN many sailors are sent to lengthy schools to further learn their rating. Most remain on board the ship to help with shipyard word and do menial but important task. A few others are sent TAD(Temporary Assigned Duty) to other ships to agument those crews and for futher training.

China will more than likely send sailors to Wuhan for further training. Which should greatly benefit those sailors.

Engineer said:

None of what you say negate the simple fact that training is continuing despite the carrier not being out at sea.

Click to expand...

No one ever said it was not continuing Engineer. That's what we call a non-sequitur.

Engineer said:

What's more is the fact that PLAN has invested huge amount of money for land based simulators, not only for the pilots but for the commanding officers and crew as well.

Click to expand...

Of course they have, I have an entire thread about that alone here and we all know this.

Engineer said:

Actions are louder than words.

Click to expand...

Yes they do.

Engineer said:

With actions, PLAN has clearly disagreed with self-appointed experts on the value of land based training, and PLAN is not the only one.

Click to expand...

The people I am talking about have never said the things you contend Engineer. I do not know who you are referring to. As I said, Kwaig and Popeye are definitely not "self appointed" experts, so why do you keep throwing that term around in response to me when I have made it clear that popeye and kwaig are who I am talking about?

Whenever a combat vessel is in port, the personnel continue their training. That's straight forward, it's important, and it is as clear as the nose on someone's face.

What Kwaig and Popeye said is that, in essence, the best and the most important training, after all else is said and done, occurs at sea. In relation to that, there's an old saying that goes something like this,

Old Saying said:

"Navy ships can be very safe in port...but that's not what Navy ships are built for."

Click to expand...

Kwaig and Popeye's point is that the PLAN will NEVER attain her true potential or any operational status with her aircraft carrier unless she spends a lot of time at sea and her sailors learn to apply all that they may be learning on land to their vessel while she is at sea. They are simply wondering why she does not spend more time there...as are many of us. There is no insult in this...just a simple question. And I fgave some very possible answers in my last post, any of which would be understandable.

But their statement about time at sea is also obviously a true statement.

Those two men also, as a result of their decades of experience, know what that takes, and know what they are talking about in regards to it. There is no one currently in the service of the PLAN of whom I am aware of, who has one tenth as much operational experience at sea on carriers as these men have. So what they say is pretty valuable. That's all.

As far as I can see, there is no real reason to argue with that.

Both kwaig and popeye are also saying that training or maintenance while in port is also important. So, there is absolutely no need to refer to kwaig or popeye as "self appointed," experts as some kind of backhanded insult. If that was your intent, then I will contest and counter such an assertion every single time.

But perhaps you were not talking about Popeye and Kwaig...perhaps you are speaking of someone else's comments...maybe in the press or another forum. If so, then we have no point of contention because I do not know what they may have said to which you are referring. I just wanted to make sure that others on this thread could in no way construe that your were talking about popeye or kwaig.

I have looked and looked for the last two weeks, but to date, even though they did mention all of the many places he visited on the ship, the only picture I can find showing U.S. Secretary of Defense Hagel's actual visit to the Liaoning is this one of him in the hanger:


I wonder if the PLAN and PRC will ever release any more?

It just seems odd to me. You would think that it would be a real opportunity for the PLAN and PRC to showcase a more transparent attitude, and willingness to document and be proud of bi-lateral ties.

I mean, after all, they did invite him onto the ship. Just seems like an opportunity missed to me.

To be fair, bagel has made some rather unsympathetic statements regarding some of China's interests and unfortunately overall, the security situation between china and the US is not tending positively.

Bltizo said:

To be fair, bagel has made some rather unsympathetic statements regarding some of China's interests and unfortunately overall, the security situation between china and the US is not tending positively.

Click to expand...

I don't think Hagel has been any more or less "unsympathetic" than any other SecState would have been given the current security situations that are being juggled in East Asia. The security situation between the US and China also hasn't changed that much substantively speaking (I caution tying in Japan and China's security tensions together with China and the US's, while they're related the diplomatic arms are still very different). There have been minor issues, but also some minor improvements (like Chinese participation in RIMPAC).

I think we can read too much into the clip at which photos from Hagel's trip are released.

latenlazy said:

I don't think Hagel has been any more or less "unsympathetic" than any other SecState would have been given the current security situations that are being juggled in East Asia. The security situation between the US and China also hasn't changed that much substantively speaking (I caution tying in Japan and China's security tensions together with China and the US's, while they're related the diplomatic arms are still very different). There have been minor issues, but also some minor improvements (like Chinese participation in RIMPAC).

I think we can read too much into the clip at which photos from Hagel's trip are released.

Click to expand...

Actually, I agree with you. I think any other visit in past years would not have been particularly covered by chinese media either, and it may not be a result of the sign of the times.

However I would argue that the US-chinese security relationship is at its worst, or at least at its most dangerous as it has been in a while, a result mostly of the disputed islands with Japan and the US-Japan security treaty.

Other minor improvements such as RIMPAC, or agreeing in principle on the conduct of unplanned encounters, as well as other smaller exercises between individual ships, pale in significance to the larger strategic shift of US forces, including the much hyped pivot to pacific, which (despite its relative average physical change in force dispersion so far) does indicate US intentions to the region and china specifically, in no quiet terms.
I'd say it hs been a gradual shift over the last six years from the pre existing security relationship to now. It was hard to notice the year to year change, but looking at it across from beginning to end I think the relationship has definitely deteriorated.

But I suppose that is off topic.