Aircraft carrier Liaoning vs Vikramaditya

[BoQ77]

We are not talking about comparing old tech. We are talking about the first place why a tractor exist onboard an carrier deck? This show something wrong with Indian navy doctrine. The so called years of experience operating an carrier is nothing but hot air. Tractor shall stay at farm land.

Hey !!!

We all still not sure whether Liaoning could operate in real combat or not?
How you can say bad words about an experienced crew of vikrant ? by showing just a look-like-modern puller in Liaoning?

Just remind on a famous phrase of a Chinese leader "don't care about yellow or white cat, just care about whether he could catch a mouse or not"

Vikrant could fight, and Vikramaditya could fight better. Let wait until Liaoning could fight.

We see that Chinese guys tend to say bad words about other for raising their reputation,
no need to do that, just build your own reputation, don't lower other ability.

 

[applesauce]

Hey !!!

We all still not sure whether Liaoning could operate in real combat or not?
How you can say bad words about an experienced crew of vikrant ? by showing just a look-like-modern puller in Liaoning?

Just remind on a famous phrase of a Chinese leader "don't care about yellow or white cat, just care about whether he could catch a mouse or not"

Vikrant could fight, and Vikramaditya could fight better. Let wait until Liaoning could fight.

We see that Chinese guys tend to say bad words about other for raising their reputation,
no need to do that, just build your own reputation, don't lower other ability.

while the chinese carrier is fully combat capable yet, you should also keep in mind, the indian carrier force is also not fully combat capable, most of the harriers for the Vikrant have crash or other wise been render combat ineffective, the Vikramaditya, while being a better platform than the Vikrant is not yet in service and all the work is done in russian bring nothing for india in the long term. Liaoning also out-classes both those ships. in terms of an escort force, the PLAN is also in a much better position with a much larger number of modern destroyers, frigates and subs. Now what indian does have going for it, is its decades of experiences operating a carrier. however this is a short term advantage, aside from the fact that Vikrant is a different type of carrier from what they will be operating in the future, and that Vikrant's operation tempo was never high, from all the data available on the chinese carrier program, we can see that many billions have been invested with plans for mutiple carriers, all of which, as far as anyone knows, will be bigger than anything india has or plans to get, and the required infrastructure have all been laid down. We can see on google maps the mutiple facilities built or being built, a brand new naval port. all the components for a successful program are made in-house, with this kind of seriously muti-billion, muti-year planning unseen anywhere else, its fair to expect the PLAN surpassing all but the USN in the coming decades, keeping in mind, while the british and french forces are experienced and have in house capabilities, their numbers are, however far smaller than what we expect for PLAN.

 

[jhungary]

People always misunderstand the phase between "Carrier Operation" and "Carrier Battle Group" operation.

Operating an Carrier is easy (well, actually no but EAS-IER than CBG Ops) you need to keep your aircraft check and launch them and put the right one armed fuelled and ready to go, bring the one you just used into hanger deck and refuel and check them. In simple word, make sure you have craft you can put airborne before you are caught with your pants down.

Operating an Carrier Battle Group, however, is literally a rocket science. First you need to take stock of the situation. How far from your whole group to your enemy, or how far is the group from Resupply point. Then you need to swept the sea and put different ship according to their role. Like you are putting Destroyer in and out about forming a picket, facing whichever direction. Putting a Cruiser between your carrier and your picket make sure when the picket picked up the bandit your cruiser is in optimal range to shoot them down. Then you need to drill a lot, making the whole group turn so that your carrier can launch aircraft into the wind without crashing on each other. And Moving from formation to formation.

But then, there are something you just cannot learn until your carrier group had been placed under trial of fire. Such as which group of planes you want to scout which sector and when are you going to launch them, how your crew react to actual emergency, how your group react to sudden influx of mixed enemy?

Any country operated aircraft carrier will tell you, with each combat sortie, they learn a lot. How US defeat the 6 IJN carriers in Battle of Midway when 3 US carrier up against 6 IJN carrier? How the UK dips the Argie in the pond by using 34 harrier from 2 carriers over the odds of 128 fighter planes from 18 Argentina Air Base? Those you cannot learn from any research and studying.

I don't understand why people in this thread says experience in combat operation is not important, dude, you are making Aircraft Carrier TO FIGHT not to make them look good at your port, COMBAT EXPERIENCE is all that matter. Forget about the different between CATOBAR/STOBAR/STOVL carrier, forget about tractor, US does not top the world carrier by having them look good in Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean, they ARE the best because they used them in battle, A LOT

 

[Shinigami]

@jhungary

very true. the hardware quality and numbers make up just half the story. the rest comes from the formulation of tactical and strategic doctrines and the role this hardware has to play in it, which mostly comes from experiance

 

[cloud_digger]

People always misunderstand the phase between "Carrier Operation" and "Carrier Battle Group" operation.

Operating an Carrier is easy (well, actually no but EAS-IER than CBG Ops) you need to keep your aircraft check and launch them and put the right one armed fuelled and ready to go, bring the one you just used into hanger deck and refuel and check them. In simple word, make sure you have craft you can put airborne before you are caught with your pants down.

Operating an Carrier Battle Group, however, is literally a rocket science. First you need to take stock of the situation. How far from your whole group to your enemy, or how far is the group from Resupply point. Then you need to swept the sea and put different ship according to their role. Like you are putting Destroyer in and out about forming a picket, facing whichever direction. Putting a Cruiser between your carrier and your picket make sure when the picket picked up the bandit your cruiser is in optimal range to shoot them down. Then you need to drill a lot, making the whole group turn so that your carrier can launch aircraft into the wind without crashing on each other. And Moving from formation to formation.

But then, there are something you just cannot learn until your carrier group had been placed under trial of fire. Such as which group of planes you want to scout which sector and when are you going to launch them, how your crew react to actual emergency, how your group react to sudden influx of mixed enemy?

Any country operated aircraft carrier will tell you, with each combat sortie, they learn a lot. How US defeat the 6 IJN carriers in Battle of Midway when 3 US carrier up against 6 IJN carrier? How the UK dips the Argie in the pond by using 34 harrier from 2 carriers over the odds of 128 fighter planes from 18 Argentina Air Base? Those you cannot learn from any research and studying.

I don't understand why people in this thread says experience in combat operation is not important, dude, you are making Aircraft Carrier TO FIGHT not to make them look good at your port, COMBAT EXPERIENCE is all that matter. Forget about the different between CATOBAR/STOBAR/STOVL carrier, forget about tractor, US does not top the world carrier by having them look good in Atlantic Ocean and Pacific Ocean, they ARE the best because they used them in battle, A LOT

Thanks for pointing out that there is more to carrier operations than just flying a plane off the deck. I was debating with myself wether to write a similar post, but i figured let the trolls stew in their ignorance, they will troll with or with out knowledge.

But as far as getting actual battle experience, that is almost a rarity in this age (especially for large scale carrier operations against navies, not carrier operations like what we see in current conflicts - aircrafts take off from the deck and go pound the ground for some terrorists). When we are talking about battle experience with respect to carrier group operations, the last time we saw this in full effect was in the 80s (and early 90s?). Since then the only carrier ops experience has been training. So, your example of the wars against IJN are probably not valid. Sure, they gained knowledge and experience from it, but it has been 6 decades since then, most of that knowledge (NOT all) is now available to any navy that has operated a carrier group for some time, either due to training with the USN and other navies or due to their own trial and errors. If that is the case then I would say, operations wise most of the navies that operate CBGs have similar experience. Note: I am not saying similar capabilities, that depends purely on the hard ware. In which case USN has no equal.

 

[jhungary]

Thanks for pointing out that there is more to carrier operations than just flying a plane off the deck. I was debating with myself wether to write a similar post, but i figured let the trolls stew in their ignorance, they will troll with or with out knowledge.

But as far as getting actual battle experience, that is almost a rarity in this age (especially for large scale carrier operations against navies, not carrier operations like what we see in current conflicts - aircrafts take off from the deck and go pound the ground for some terrorists). When we are talking about battle experience with respect to carrier group operations, the last time we saw this in full effect was in the 80s (and early 90s?). Since then the only carrier ops experience has been training. So, your example of the wars against IJN are probably not valid. Sure, they gained knowledge and experience from it, but it has been 6 decades since then, most of that knowledge (NOT all) is now available to any navy that has operated a carrier group for some time, either due to training with the USN and other navies or due to their own trial and errors. If that is the case then I would say, operations wise most of the navies that operate CBGs have similar experience. Note: I am not saying similar capabilities, that depends purely on the hard ware. In which case USN has no equal.

maybe I did not make myself clear. Combat Experience is not limited to where and what you learn but also how do you know.

Maybe I should first started using an extreme example, and then ease off so you will understand.

Every Country have doctor, surgeon and physician, but does that mean we all know the same amount of Human anatomy? No. Can data study from human? Of course, but the truth behind it is very, very, far from you perform actual experiment on human.

If you have read anything about Unit 731 experiment, tho they are immoral, their study is invaluable to the combat science. How human react with any type of trauma, virus and Biological/Chemical attack. Those data you cannot get until you actually did those kind of stuff to your fellow human. I am not condoning the action of Unit 731, but their work actually did benefit those who hold that data. It does not matter if those data are 70 years ago, the human composite never change, that mean the same data can be applied today. Which give the edge of US, Japan and Allied Nation for its value.

So, is that same experience with CBG warfare is discounted today? You may think, yeah those experience are 70 years old and they have been thoroughly distributed between each nation, and we don't use prop plane anymore or we don't need airborne torpedo anymore. But the basis of conflict is still the same, there you are, you have an overwhelming force engaging a static islands, and a carrier force that supplement the island as an auxiliary force, this same situation can be happen all over again today, instead of diesel powered aircraft carrier, you have nuclear power aircraft carrier, instead of Torpedo plane, you have your jet striker, the hardware may be different, but the situation is the same.

Combat experience build on your loss. There are an old saying that you learn nothing until people start dying (for real.) We learn from carrier we lost and planes that re lost. Each fighter we lost in combat, each carrier we lost in combat is an hard earned experience, be that a far away carrier fight or a fire onboard a carrier like the 1967 Forrestal fire, you will not have the same experience and expertise to deal with the same situation unless you have a jet that accidentally shoot a rocket and ignite a fire on the aft of your carrier.

Do you know why we still study D-Day, Brécourt Manor Assault, Battle of Kurst, or even Battle of Hasting in West Point?? Even tho they are centuries or even millennium old battle??

 

[cloud_digger]

maybe I did not make myself clear. Combat Experience is not limited to where and what you learn but also how do you know.

Maybe I should first started using an extreme example, and then ease off so you will understand.

Every Country have doctor, surgeon and physician, but does that mean we all know the same amount of Human anatomy? No. Can data study from human? Of course, but the truth behind it is very, very, far from you perform actual experiment on human.

If you have read anything about Unit 731 experiment, tho they are immoral, their study is invaluable to the combat science. How human react with any type of trauma, virus and Biological/Chemical attack. Those data you cannot get until you actually did those kind of stuff to your fellow human. I am not condoning the action of Unit 731, but their work actually did benefit those who hold that data. It does not matter if those data are 70 years ago, the human composite never change, that mean the same data can be applied today. Which give the edge of US, Japan and Allied Nation for its value.

So, is that same experience with CBG warfare is discounted today? You may think, yeah those experience are 70 years old and they have been thoroughly distributed between each nation, and we don't use prop plane anymore or we don't need airborne torpedo anymore. But the basis of conflict is still the same, there you are, you have an overwhelming force engaging a static islands, and a carrier force that supplement the island as an auxiliary force, this same situation can be happen all over again today, instead of diesel powered aircraft carrier, you have nuclear power aircraft carrier, instead of Torpedo plane, you have your jet striker, the hardware may be different, but the situation is the same.

Combat experience build on your loss. There are an old saying that you learn nothing until people start dying (for real.) We learn from carrier we lost and planes that re lost. Each fighter we lost in combat, each carrier we lost in combat is an hard earned experience, be that a far away carrier fight or a fire onboard a carrier like the 1967 Forrestal fire, you will not have the same experience and expertise to deal with the same situation unless you have a jet that accidentally shoot a rocket and ignite a fire on the aft of your carrier.

Do you know why we still study D-Day, Brécourt Manor Assault, Battle of Kurst, or even Battle of Hasting in West Point?? Even tho they are centuries or even millennium old battle??

The last part is what i am focusing on, they have been studied and studied by all. The USN battles with the IJN are studied by all naval colleges, not just in the US or Japan. The Forrestal fire set new standards, probably radically new standards at its time. They are followed (infact they are like the gold standard) by all CBG operating navies. But, since then, i dont believe any major real time war event (except for the Brit-Arg war) has taken place that has sent the admirals back to the war room. All new ideas and tactics have come from simulations and training. What I am trying to say is, the vast experience the USN gained immediately after the 2nd WW put her miles ahead of the rest of the pack. When the fire broke out and new standards for carrier operations were devised, they were ahead of the pack, again. But since then, these standards and war experiences have been passed on to other navies too.

I am not discounting the experience the USN gained from the wars and battle field operations. But, a lot of time has passed since then, others have picked up, the gap is almost nil I would say. And all those tactics came out of war, I do not dispute that. It is just that, in my opinion, all those navies that have been operating CBGs for a while have caught up with USN in carrier ops, again, I am not talking about hardware capabilities, just their operations capabilities. They have understood how to operate CBGs just as good as USN.

All her new tactics are born out of her simulations and training. Granted they do that on a much more intense scale than others, but other navies also have their training and simulations. A lot of time has passed between now and the last major battle involving the USN CBG.

 

[xuxu1457]

Search 35.996000,120.265000 at Google
China‘s new carrier in ship yard, seen from google earth
http://bbs.tiexue.net/post_6741644_1.html

 

[cloud_digger]

Search 35.996000,120.265000 at Google
China‘s new carrier in ship yard, seen from google earth

Is that really the carrier? It has a weird shape for a carrier.

 

[xuxu1457]

Is that really the carrier? It has a weird shape for a carrier.

I Measured， about 75m width, the prow part of carrier, and no one other type ship like that shape

 

[cloud_digger]

I Measured， about 75m width, the prow part of carrier, and no one other type ship like that shape

It seems like it is extremely narrow on one end, like some of the fanboy CGs we have seen some time back, depicting an island in the middle of the ship and two decks on either side of the run way. It does not seem to have the conventional rectangular profile from top view. Hence my question.

 

[xuxu1457]

It seems like it is extremely narrow on one end, like some of the fanboy CGs we have seen some time back, depicting an island in the middle of the ship and two decks on either side of the run way. It does not seem to have the conventional rectangular profile from top view. Hence my question.

Google updata at 15th February， some people find that these days, more will come out if google updata next time, next with the prow is the body of the carrier, seen have two Catapults

 

[jhungary]

The last part is what i am focusing on, they have been studied and studied by all. The USN battles with the IJN are studied by all naval colleges, not just in the US or Japan. The Forrestal fire set new standards, probably radically new standards at its time. They are followed (infact they are like the gold standard) by all CBG operating navies. But, since then, i dont believe any major real time war event (except for the Brit-Arg war) has taken place that has sent the admirals back to the war room. All new ideas and tactics have come from simulations and training. What I am trying to say is, the vast experience the USN gained immediately after the 2nd WW put her miles ahead of the rest of the pack. When the fire broke out and new standards for carrier operations were devised, they were ahead of the pack, again. But since then, these standards and war experiences have been passed on to other navies too.

I am not discounting the experience the USN gained from the wars and battle field operations. But, a lot of time has passed since then, others have picked up, the gap is almost nil I would say. And all those tactics came out of war, I do not dispute that. It is just that, in my opinion, all those navies that have been operating CBGs for a while have caught up with USN in carrier ops, again, I am not talking about hardware capabilities, just their operations capabilities. They have understood how to operate CBGs just as good as USN.

All her new tactics are born out of her simulations and training. Granted they do that on a much more intense scale than others, but other navies also have their training and simulations. A lot of time has passed between now and the last major battle involving the USN CBG.

You are missing my point.........Point is you can study all you want with Staff College, War College. But without the person who literally tell you why and how they do that, you would not get the same intel. Yes, D-Day, Brecourt and whatever example I quote are studied in any Major Military College in the world, Royal Military College Duntroon, RMC Sandhurst, RMC Canada. But those college did not learn from the same standard as they do have Dick Winter talking in West point about why he does what he did in Brecourt and they do not have Oman Bradley talking in RMC Sandhurst talking about D-Day.

Study and real experience cannot be mixed together.

 

[Super Falcon]

well indian carrier is not a brand new it is weaker i think if you hit it on the right spot russsian made fool of indians in the same refurbished vikramdatiya they have got new carrier

 

[cloud_digger]

You are missing my point.........Point is you can study all you want with Staff College, War College. But without the person who literally tell you why and how they do that, you would not get the same intel. Yes, D-Day, Brecourt and whatever example I quote are studied in any Major Military College in the world, Royal Military College Duntroon, RMC Sandhurst, RMC Canada. But those college did not learn from the same standard as they do have Dick Winter talking in West point about why he does what he did in Brecourt and they do not have Oman Bradley talking in RMC Sandhurst talking about D-Day.

Study and real experience cannot be mixed together.

True, vetarans teach you better than professors. But how long has it been since WW2? How many are still around to teach us? In fact, I would say the RN has more uptodate strategies considering the last war to involve CBGs was the Flacklands. All I am saying is the last time a war involved a CBG was a long time ago.