PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Bltizo said:

I don't think the original post mentioned anything about the ship shutting down.

A few posts back there was a nice translation.

Unfortunately, the folks over at war is boring churn out mostly bad quality stuff that occasionally gets regurgitated by other outlets. Then again, few western news sources bother to check the original chinese source, especially with people that can read chinese.

Click to expand...

The Sina article did mentioned the Liaoning's propulsion power was restored after the crew fixed the leak. So.. it probably meant the Liaoning must've been suffered a temporary propulsion loss at the time or the captain ordered the shutdown during the pipe leak.

In the English version from Businessinsider, it changed to the carrier unexpectedly powered down during a sea trial, The vessel "appeared to suffer a steam explosion which temporarily knocked out the carrier’s electrical power system temporarily."

The original article didn't mention any explosion, just said leaking of water and hot steam from the pipe. And no mention of an officer pulling a sailor out by his collar to save him from the extremely hot steam. That's just pure fiction from the English version.

This is what happens when western journalists prioritise fear-mongering or produce understatements and lies to boost narcissism, instead of reporting real news and analysis about China's military and industry. A lot of western editorials about China is either fear-mongering to increase defence spending, or underestimate the Chinese defence industry for their ego. Only a handful of English sources such as Sino Defence, Janes, and China Defence blog actually review China's military without bias and political agendas.

Liaoning has four screws. With two steam generators for each screw one of them might have lost half of its power. For electrical power there are diesel engines so any interruption in the regular electricity supply should have passed within minutes.

With Liaoning fifty days at sea she with have met a fleet supply vessel many times. I don't remember seeing any photograph of any such occasion.

delft said:

With Liaoning fifty days at sea she with have met a fleet supply vessel many times. I don't remember seeing any photograph of any such occasion.

Click to expand...

Did she spend 50 days consecutively at sea? Impressive. As Delft pointed out she would have need to meet with a replenishment ship several times. Even with her limited flight operations.

balance said:

But the Lianoning's recent problems also show China is still far behind the US as a military power — something that might only make its actions less predictable and more worrisome as Beijing progresses towards super-power status.

Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

We've been discussing this incident that the article points out for the last numerous posts.

The contention in the article that this problem indicates that the PLAN has some serious problems and is far behind the US is not necessarily the case, particularly as a result of the problem they had.

1st, we know that the PLAN is well behind the US in terms of their Navy. That is no surprise and is not news.

This recent problem thay had is not in itself, indicative of this though.

All naval vessels are complex pieces of equipment, Their power plants do wonderful things...but they also break down from time to time, even with the best of maintenance.

This episode had the Liaoning suffer a powerplant difficulty at sea. It was quickly identified and then repaired while at sea. The vessel did not return to port for the repair, and it did not return to port after the at-sea repair.

This indicated several things:

1) The problem was not major.
2) The Chinese personnel were able to repair the vessel at sea.
3) The Chinese training and maintenance are doing fairly well.
4) The Chinese exercises continued despite the problem.

None of that indicates a weakness or some kind or serious failing on the PLAN's part.

As I say, mechanical failures and breakdown occur at sea. They occur with the US Navy. Ask any sailor who has ever been to sea for any length of time.

balance said:

China's Only Air Craft Carrier Is Having Some Technical Difficulties

Read more:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

It's BS, probably due to mistranslation again. Any problems on Chinese military you may hear on Chinese media are old issues that were solved long time ago. There is no bloody way China is going to revel any ongoing issues, unlike the western media.

This particular story came from a human interest story on Liaoning's chief engineering officer. This happened during Laioning's original sea trial, which is a couple of years ago. So whatever it is, it is old news.

Interestingly, in a CCTV's story on him, there was an incident in June of 2013 -- but that's just an abnormality detected on instrumentation just before an exercise. That one was resolved without any issues as well.
In the CCTV report, it mentioned that there were around 1700 mechanical/electrical engineering changes being made during the last refit, with more than a thousand changes are made with the feedback from the crew (out of around two thousand proposals from the crew).

Tyloe said:

This is what happens when western journalists prioritise fear-mongering or produce understatements and lies to boost narcissism, instead of reporting real news and analysis about China's military and industry. A lot of western editorials about China is either fear-mongering to increase defence spending, or underestimate the Chinese defence industry for their ego. Only a handful of English sources such as Sino Defence, Janes, and China Defence blog actually review China's military without bias and political agendas.

Click to expand...

There are relative unbiased and knowledgeable western writers on Chinese military. I like Andrew Erickson and Wendell Minnick. Then you have hawks such as Gertz, Fisher, Holmes, who usually try to exaggerate Chinese aggressive intentions and simultaneously downplay Chinese military capabilities. The danger of their approach is that by falsely portraying China as hyper aggressive and weak, they encourage American military actions against China while trivializing the potential cost. The same mistake that led to the invasion of Iraq. They play to a particular political audience. Finally you have nerds like Axe.

Gertz and Fisher seem to really play up Chinese capabilities, actually.

Holmes is more spot on, though he does seem out of his depth *heh* when talking about non naval Chinese military matters.

Skywatcher said:

Gertz and Fisher seem to really play up Chinese capabilities, actually.

Holmes is more spot on, though he does seem out of his depth *heh* when talking about non naval Chinese military matters.

Click to expand...

They play up Chinese hardware development, but downplay operational capabilities. Hardware development is part of aggressive intention I wrote about. The script is usually look how much money the Chinese are spending to development new weapons, but they still can't get it right. Holmes is better.