China’s getting into the carrier aviation game:
China announced that its first class of carrier aviators had begun training at the Dalian Naval Academy. The naval officers will undergo a four year course of instruction to turn them into fighter pilots capable of operating off a carrier. China already has an airfield, in the shape of a carrier deck, built at an inland facility. The Russians have warned China that it may take them a decade or more to develop the knowledge and skills needed to efficiently run an aircraft carrier. The Chinese are game, and are slogging forward.
The PLAN’s operational platform is apparently to be the ex-RFS Varyag, auctioned to China in 1998, ostensibly to be a floating casino in Macau (cha!).
The Varyag was the second of two Kuznetsov-class carriers built by the Soviets. Originally intended to be competitor designs to American Nimitz-class ships, operational complexity drove the Former Soviet Union to downscale the ships to the 65,000 ton class, with conventional power plants and omitting catapults in favor of VSTOL-style jump ramps on the bow.
It’s one thing to buy an aircraft carrier and even to train the pilots who will fly aboard her. It’s an entirely different matter to operate her efficiently and effectively. There are literally dozens of people on the flight deck alone whose skills are operationally critical and for which no true formal training process exists – these are the last of the true guildsmen, shaped by decade-long apprenticeships under the stern tutelage of master technicians: people like Landing Signal Officers, Flight Deck Officers, Arresting Gear Officers, the Air Boss, the Gun Boss and Ordnance Handling Officer, the Handler, even Snoopy there in Flight Deck Control. Individually, each of them are nearly irreplaceable – in aggregation they represent hundreds of years collective experience operating at the finest margins of collaborative control. You can’t buy that off the shelf, and it will take decades of gradual experimentation (and operational losses) before China can dabble an operational toe in waters the US Navy has swum in continuously for almost a hundred years, along the way learning lessons written in blood and forged in fire.
All that’s before we get into the inherent limitations of trying to fight a ship using nothing but a dozen strike fighters (no matter how advanced) operating off a small-deck carrier using jump ramps.
Some analysts predict that ex-Varyag – now named Shi Lang, after the first Manchu general to seize Taiwan for China in 1683 – will only be a transitional ship, as China builds a more capable carrier in the future. (Shi Lang, history tells us, won great honor in the imperial court before being eventually charged with arrogance.)
So, yeah: This should be good.
Well,
If’n I were in charge, the FIRST item on the agenda would be training SAR helo crews in their jobs. The medical staff and damage control (especially flight deck fire fighting skill sets) would be next.
You are right, Lex. This oughta be as much fun as watching the Soviets dabble their toes in the water.
This is absolutely a profession where good decisions come from experience, and experience comes from poor decisions. The only drawback is that the costs of those poor decisions are usually so terribly high.
Respects,
Well I’m sure they’ll attempt to steal the technology and know how from us, but it’ll end up being “not quite right” like a lot of their other copies and adaptations of American technologies. You’re right Lex–this should be good.
The PRC can steal all the tech they want, what they can’t steal is that intricate dance. Hell, the simple logistics involved in carrier ops will kick their butts! Lex, your point is the same one I’ve made for years to the European Harpoon players, that you can never equate paper capabilites for real world expertise, and the best example of that is the US Navy. We are the only Navy with the training and institutional skills to operate naval aircraft in the war at sea arena.
And correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t that ramp launch require a minimum fuel at launch, immediate re-fuel after, especially with a full ordinance load? Gonna really suck if Texaco goes sour…
Guys, Guys, Guys,
This is just next war-itis. Just have Dr Gates fire a couple of Chinese Air Force Generals and all will be well.
Read or heard a long time ago that one of the best things Americans can learn and realize about the Chinese is that they are planning the long game. In a timeline in context, our carrier aviation capabilities are still relatively “new”. The Chinese start now. Give them fifty years. Our grandkids will pass each other abeam, hopefully in peace, in carrier battle groups of the future.
My comfort is knowing that we recognized the critical importance of power projection from the seas best, and first. Doesn’t mean they might not get good, but we’ll always have the edge.
Just remember the Chinese play to a different rulebook than we do. What we would consider unacceptable losses in the learning cycle they’ll likely just consider the cost of doing business. Personally I wouldn’t want to underestimate them. I’ve always been much more concerned about having to fight Chinese than Russians…
I saw something about this earlier…unfortunately I just don’t know enough about the subject to know if it’s a cause for concern or not. I do think that China is playing the “long game” however, and that we would do well to keep our eye on them.
[...] an ex-Russian carrier (which, BTW, comes not long after publicly announcing your intentions to jump into the fixed-wing naval aviation game – so much for the casino 1 meme…) to launch a new Caddy in recognition of GM’s [...]
Pogue is right. The PRC is flush with cash and they never were squimish about casualties/operational losses either. The Korean War phrase “human wave” charges didn’t arise out of thin air.
now named Shi Lang, after the first Manchu general to seize Taiwan for China in 1683
Am I the only one who finds this alarming? We’re fond of saying “words have meaning,” but the Chinese take this mindset to an entirely different level.
ex-MELBOURNE RAN carrier deck is the one you have in mind perhaps? “China already has an airfield, in the shape of a carrier deck, built at an inland facility.”
Sounds like the Navy needs to be polishing up the good old-fashioned War At Sea tactics.
China worries me because we and they are both trade powers…and trade powers rely on control of the sea. The last time two such powers came into conflict, it led to Pearl Harbor.
Some positives might just come from this. Perhaps the PRC will respect our Navy that much more while learning the carrier aviation game. My guess is only the sailors would respect us more ,the PRC officials might not.
It’ll never work. Imagine a Chinese LSO trying to say “Roger ball.”
The Russians saying it takes 10 years plus…
thats funny, just putting out to sea and launching and recoving daytime ops with an interval of 10 minutes does not constitute carrier ops.
Definitely something to watch, but wouldn’t put me in a tizzy. Heck, I’d love to see all the IRRs on the process. would be good for a few laughs.
claudio
rofl, Nose.
The restaraunt scene from Christmas story comes to mind.
How do you say “No chance Paddles” in Mandarin?
The bubble heads will make short work of this if the bah-roon goes up.
There’s only two types of ships, “subs and targets.” Indeed.
méi guānxi
“Melbourne was finally moved to the northern port city of Dalian where she was broken up. There have been several reports of the Chinese reconfiguring a runway to resemble an aircraft carrier deck for flight deck landing training by PLA pilots.”
&
“On 13 January 2001, the online Australian magazine in Melbourne “The Age.com.au”, indicated that China has been using the flight deck of the former Australian aircraft carrier HMAS Melbourne to train its pilots ahead of the launch of its first locally-made aircraft carrier. Quoting unnamed sources, the Hong Kong based independent Chinese language Ming Pao daily reported that the Chinese 4.8 billion yuan ($A892 million) aircraft carrier is slated to be in the water in 2003, although it will take another two years to have it fully ready for service. Satellite image of the reconstructed Melbourne flight deck attached to the end of a runway in northern China. The angled flight deck centerline is aligned with the main runway and aircraft were catapulted out over the salt pan and bay.”
http://users.qld.chariot.net.au/~dialabull/R21%20History2.htm
Lex — not to pick a fight, but I think you left off the most critical skill sets in the mix — the Flight Deck chiefs. Those ABCs (of all types of letter #3), with sixteen years at sea in an eighteen year career, are the closest thing in the Navy to the Sam Elliot character in “We Were Soldiers” — irreplacable, and only grown by experience. The esssence of “deck plate leadership”. The dedication, and sacrifice, to get that pool of knowledge to make that OSHA bureaucrat’s nightmare called a flight deck, work, is something the Chinese won’t have for fifteen years, and the lessons will be written in blood.
I respected a lot of people on the ship, and recognized our interdependance. But no one group (especially all of you FALSOs, Nose —
) had what bordered on awe, like the Flight Deck chiefs.
ROGER BAWR
YOUR ROW…A RITTER POWER
RIGHT FOR RINE-UP!!!
TaxiOne, my favourite.
No, I agree Scott. I just sort of assumed that no one got to be a Flight Deck Officer without first working his way up through the AB rates. Thought I’d threw an umbrella over it, if you will.
I know it’s a bit morbid, but I can’t help but wondering what the Chinese pictogram for “Ramp Strike” looks like…
Can’t remember where I saw it, and couldn’t find it in a quick search, but I read the other day that the Chinese are in the process of designing a follow on to the Varyag. They’ve supposedly purchased the Soviet plans for the Supercarrier that was never built. It will be Nuclear powered and 95000 tons, not unlike a Nimitz class.
When I read this my first thought is, “Oh sure, you can get a big carrier, but how long does it take to build up to 6, 8 or more in peace time?” Hate to say it, but a lot of our expertise comes from running these ships during times of great stress, nor just peaceful training.
And will the Chinese put their island one the Port side, since they read backwards? Is the island on the Starboard side now only because P-factor in old prop planes tended to pull the aircraft to the left? Never thought of it before.
Taxi1,
ROFLMAOPIMP!!!1!
Jim C
Idaho Joe – I saw the same article somewhere – might have been DefenseTech.org – can’t remember right now.
Having worked in China about 10 years ago I would hesitate to underestimate them. What Pogue said is correct – they have a very different playbook and they feel they have plenty of human resources to throw at this problem. The boat might not operate the way we would expect but they are not stupid.
Having said that, I would think the PLAT video will be pretty interesting.
Scott, Totally agree with your comment # 18 above…just one small quibble… Sam Elliot played the lead in the 70s WWII TV min-series “Once an Eagle”…”We Were Soldiers”( Once and Young)…is the Mel Gibson RVN movie of a more recent vintage …both were great books and excellent movies. Best
PS, Characterizing an event as a ” Chinese Fire Drill” is about to take on an added meaning… it promises to be a hoot.
Snake Eater — Sam Elliot played CSM Basil Plumley in “We Were Soldiers” — guy with two stars on his CIB. My 82ABN (2/505, Normandy, Market Garden, Bulge) raised me to notice such things.
Snake-
Scott speaks the troooth.
“Any of you sumbitches call me grandpa, I’ll kill ‘ya.”
Nose,
Snake might not have recognized Sam without his righteous cowboy stache.
Scott,
2/505 was Ben Vandervoort’s battalion wasn’t it?
3-505
Combat drops are denoted by bronze stars on one’s jump wings. In WWII there were dozens of drops that would have entitled the dropee to earn a “mustard stain.”
yep, and I had the pleasure of meeting BGEN Vandervoort in Hilton Head, probably in the ’73 timeframe — Dad came down, and we drove down there on a Saturday. Dad was the NCOIC of the Battalion Med Section — Lyle Putnam, the battalion surgeon, was a doctor from Wichita, and a good friend of my uncle, the doctor. They set Vandervoort’s broken ankle on D-Day — made famous by John Wayne in the movie. After meeting the good general, there wasn’t anyone else who could have portrayed him.
Geo6 — 2/505
Scott,
Awesome. Of course, I remember “The Longest Day.” Vandervoort also figures rather prominently in Gavin’s book “On to Berlin,” I think it’s called. Those were some manly men.
About fifteen years or so ago I got invited to a reception and birthday party in Atlanta my an acquaintance. I asked who’s birthday. “Some retired Marine,” he said. I had something else to do, so I begged off. Later I found out that ‘some retired Marine,’ was Raymond G. Davis.
I wish the hell I’d gone now.
Scott, I stand corrected… Best
For us Army impaired types can you translate the meaning of the numbers? I am assuming 2 is 2nd Battalion-505 is what?
Skippy –
I believe thats 2nd Battalion 505th Infantry Regiment.
and the best Sam Eliot quote from We Were Soldiers is when he is confronted with the stench of the RVN dead and states “kinda makes you wish you went submarines, don’t it?”
I know it’s a bit morbid, but I can’t help but wondering what the Chinese pictogram for “Ramp Strike” looks like…
舷梯罷工
- SJS
Yes program is probably an investment akin to the space program for the Chinese. They’re not exactly sure what will come of it in the end, but they want to have the options down the road, thirty, forty, fifty years.
And they’re flush with cash and highly educated scientists, so why not. You can only build so many mag-lev trains…
Oh yeah. I’ve seen slow-motion films of attempted recoveries aboard USS Langley, back in the early twenties. They broke lots of airplanes and also lots of aviators, before they figured out how to do that without killing people, even in peace-time.
Oh, P.s.
The guy who made the first carrier landing (Dunning was his name, I think) was killed attempting the second carrier landing.
It _is_ inherently dangerous. Man was not meant to fly.
Keep yer wits about you!
Idaho Joe – I doubt the reason for the island placement is due to the tendency of prop aircraft to pull to the left. British piston engines turn in the opposite direction, and hence tend to pull to the right, yet British carriers of the formative period still had the island on the starboard side. There were even two Japanese carriers with islands on opposite sides, meant to operate in tandem, conducting simultaneous ‘contra’ ops.
Of course it would help if the ship had an engine to push it around. It was sold without one and reports are that they have not cut it open to add one.
Oh, by the way, there are actually two former Soviet carriers which you can visit in China.
Kiev is part of a theme park in Shenzhen (across from Hong Kong). Her sister Minsk is a museum in Tianjin (not far from Beijing).
Notice that the name is of a Manchurian General for their new (really old) carrier. A carrier which in my limited thinking offers no real tactical advantage WRT Taiwan. Aircraft that would need to tank frequently, escorts that would need air cover from land based aircraft, taking valuable airframes away from other roles. The better to use SSKs for a blocking role and not tie down assets to protect a carrier that would have limited value against Taiwan?
Will the Varyag will be just that, a training carrier, training for other hulls down the road. The name is just justification? Message? Pride?
Will the Island go sideways?
Taxi – Funny Chit
The Chinese are sort of infatuated with aircraft carriers as symbols of power in a way we would find odd. For example, you can see ads for luxury condos that use the image of an aircraft carrier in the background, the way we might see a luxury vehicle in an ad. I don’t pretend to understand it. So yeah, the whole project might be more show than anything. Hard to know.