You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
China's Testing Woes Remind That Developing Carrier Planes Is Hard
2013-03-27
This article reinforces one of the comments Joe Mendiola made yesterday that, "the longer any NE Asia conflict lasts, the more proficient/expert the "rusty" PLA will become".
[Wired] The ongoing trials of China's first aircraft carrier and her ship-based jet fighters represent a major leap ahead in capability for the People's Liberation Army Navy. But the hype surrounding Lioaning's debut test cruise last summer and the inaugural landing of her J-15 fighters in late November masks an important truth, one the world's other carrier powers have long known.

Developing a flattop and its planes is hard, requiring years of trial and error and no small amount of risk. And while China's ascent as a naval power might seem unstoppable, the saga of China's first seagoing fighter pilots proves otherwise. A lot of things can, have and will go wrong, casting into doubt whether Beijing will possess a truly useful carrier capability any time soon.

There have been at least three close calls involving the small force of experimental J-15s since the Chinese navy established its initial carrier aviation task force in late 2006. The accidents and near-accidents are detailed in a remarkable story published this week on the Chinese website Sina -- remarkable because Sina gets its information directly from state-run media outlets, which rarely cop to mistakes on the part of the mighty Chinese military.

At great risk to its pilots over a period of years, China had proved it could perform the basic functions of an aircraft carrier. Performing those functions routinely, and safely -- to say nothing of doing them under the stresses of actual combat -- is another matter. If the recent past is any indication, China still has a ways to go before its nominal carrier capability becomes a meaningful one.
Posted by:Pappy

#11  Golly Shipman, thanks for that fact I didn't know the Imperial Japanese Navy developed the night carrier landing...I thought it was some dumb as a stump and twice as brave Swordfish driver overstaying his welcome over the North Atlantic.
Posted by: Bill Clinton   2013-03-27 23:40  

#10  Presuming that no Sino-Nippon shooting war breaks out in the East China Sea - sorry, I meant "DPRK/NOKOR" + Nippon - the "DPRK" = Chinese seemingly want to use their new CV as a testbed for future PLAN Nuclear Carriers, USMC-style helo carriers [UK = Commando carrier], + NavTechs = New Technologies.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2013-03-27 23:38  

#9  A friend recently retired from driving Navy search & rescue helicopters. He said his scariest flights were practice flights - PRACTICED in bad weather because that's what you had to be prepared for if needed.
Posted by: Glenmore   2013-03-27 20:11  

#8  We had the Brits who developed a lot of the techniques and training
That's true, but if we're talking about night landings, well now, that was an IJN thing. There's a Navy that might have retained a bit of institutional knowledge
Posted by: Shipman   2013-03-27 16:15  

#7  Well if you can't land on a carrier what good is that big ole thing?

Anyone want to make an estimate of how many pilots they've killed and aircraft they've wrecked trying to get it done?

Too bad the idea of the PRC having a carrier air fleet scares everyone, NO ONE is going to help them learn...We had the Brits who developed a lot of the techniques and training to make it work...after all they figured out how to land a Corsair (F4U Gullwing, whispering death, Old Hosenose) on a carrier after our Navy AND the Marines had given up on the idea.
Posted by: Bill Clinton   2013-03-27 15:28  

#6  They should have started with some vtol fighters and seaplanes first. Harriers proved awesome in a dogfight, that's what they should be copying. Beyond that a lot of it is about your missiles.

Do the Chinese have mid-air refueling? That's another big thing. Something they could hvae been working on for decades but few countries actually bothered.
Posted by: rjschwarz   2013-03-27 14:40  

#5  which came first the ability to land on a carrier or the carrier

The carrier. There was a carrier of a sort during the US Civil war (launched observation balloons.) There were also ships, like cruisers, seaplane tenders and WWI-era towed craft that literally carried aircraft; landing was ashore or on the water to be retrieved by the vessel.

And yes - night landings are interesting. Did them pax-riding in a C-2 Greyhound. Take-offs were fun, too.

Also was in an auto-gyroed landing one night in a CH-46 - but that's another story.
Posted by: Pappy   2013-03-27 14:05  

#4  Bill, my son went to college with a guy that became an F14 driver. Met him once about 15 years ago and he told some stories about night landings. Big brass ones and weird don't even scracth the surface and I knew a little about it cause my Uncle taught at Pensacola for WWII.

All I can say it that I'm glad they're on our side.
Posted by: AlanC   2013-03-27 11:45  

#3  I've always wondered, which came first the ability to land on a carrier or the carrier. You have to be able to land on the sucker before you can land on the sucker and a carrier is just a big piece of useless ocean if you can't land on it routinely and safely.

I wonder if the PRC is video taping training off San Diego and missed a few exercises...

As for night landings, not only no but HELL NO you are never going to get me to even freaking ride in a plane making a night carrier landing. Something about having big brass ones is what separates carrier jocks from normal humanity.

And paraphrasing the late great Henry Manny, "If you think Navy aviators are weird, just think how weird they would be if they WEREN'T Navy aviators".

I bet the PLA is not copping to a fraction of the carnage of trying to get their naval aviation program up and running. The numbers would give an Air Wing Commander a heart attack.
Posted by: Bill Clinton   2013-03-27 10:14  

#2  Given that the US started all this with prop driven planes and worked up to jets is it possible that the learning curve has gotten much steeper if you want to start here?

I've had a little experience where the concept of institutional knowledge was proven. The first class took a long time to learn, the next years class took less time, etc.
Posted by: AlanC   2013-03-27 07:13  

#1  Have they gotten up to night landings yet?
Posted by: Procopius2k   2013-03-27 00:28  

00:00