Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/148814/

Topic: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: justinlee
Posted 2012-12-08 06:37:25 and read 15222 times.

From a reliable source, there are some US Navy veterans working in the China's aircraft carrier program. Now it's a hot topic on chinese military website. The leader is a former F-14 pilot and worked for Qantas after retirement. No wonder that China's deck operation system is the same with that of US Navy.

[Edited 2012-12-08 06:38:10]

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: Oroka
Posted 2012-12-08 16:37:25 and read 14932 times.

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
No wonder that China's deck operation system is the same with that of US Navy.

lol, I would put my money on Top Gun and Youtube.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: SYDSpotter
Posted 2012-12-09 02:15:52 and read 14729 times.

Quoting justinlee (Thread starter):
No wonder that China's deck operation system is the same with that of US Navy.

Hmm not quite, ski-jump vs catapult take-off. Pretty big difference there.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: garnetpalmetto
Posted 2012-12-09 07:16:28 and read 14546 times.

Quoting SYDSpotter (Reply 2):

Hmm not quite, ski-jump vs catapult take-off. Pretty big difference there.

For one, I don't think that's quite was OP meant and might actually indicate the veracity of what he's saying. If you look over at the pics in http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/148495/ you'll see the deck crew seem to be wearing the same system of colored float coats and cranials to make it easily to determine who does what (ie yellow = aircraft handlers, red = crash & salvage and ordnance, purple = fuel handlers, etc) and also seem to be using the same system of hand signals. Most puzzling, at least to me is the last one. Note the two yellowshirts in the fencer's pose (crouched on one knee pointing down the deck) - on a CVN that'd be the signal for the shooter to fire the catapult to launch the aircraft. So in a non-CATOBAR environment...why is THAT particular signal necessary

Beyond that, while Liaoning is a ski-jump carrier, who's to say that they may not go for a CATOBAR design in the future? At one point the Chinese were interested in purchasing the Cemenceau which is CATOBAR and the Sovies saw the Kuznetsov design as a stepping stone to the Ulyanovsks which would have feaured catapults.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: nomadd22
Posted 2012-12-09 09:59:48 and read 14416 times.

I don't think the USN would have a problem okaying a little assistance in flight deck training considering the information they'd get about Chinese ops in return.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-12-09 11:44:15 and read 14325 times.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 3):
the Sovies saw the Kuznetsov design as a stepping stone to the Ulyanovsks which would have feaured catapults.

It also had a skijump.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7c/%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%90%D0%9A%D0%A0_%D0%A3%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA.jpg/800px-%D0%A2%D0%90%D0%90%D0%9A%D0%A0_%D0%A3%D0%BB%D1%8C%D1%8F%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B2%D1%81%D0%BA.jpg

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: aeroweanie
Posted 2012-12-09 14:21:15 and read 14202 times.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 4):
I don't think the USN would have a problem okaying a little assistance in flight deck training considering the information they'd get about Chinese ops in return.

Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations Chapter I, Subchapter M, Parts 120-130, International Traffic in Arm Regulations (ITAR) governs US citizens providing defense-related services. I doubt that the US State Department (the controlling agency for ITAR) would license US Navy veterans to assist the People's Liberation Army Navy in the operation of the Liaoning. Violation of ITAR carries criminal penalties, which are actively prosecuted.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: moo
Posted 2012-12-10 03:40:28 and read 13859 times.

Quoting aeroweanie (Reply 6):
Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations Chapter I, Subchapter M, Parts 120-130, International Traffic in Arm Regulations (ITAR) governs US citizens providing defense-related services. I doubt that the US State Department (the controlling agency for ITAR) would license US Navy veterans to assist the People's Liberation Army Navy in the operation of the Liaoning. Violation of ITAR carries criminal penalties, which are actively prosecuted.

As of 2008, there were more than 65,000 non-US citizens serving in the US armed forces - it would be difficult to prosecute them under such a law.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: dk1967
Posted 2012-12-10 07:55:00 and read 13729 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
As of 2008, there were more than 65,000 non-US citizens serving in the US armed forces - it would be difficult to prosecute them under such a law.

All US Navy officers must be US citizens, and all Navy pilots are officers.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: connies4ever
Posted 2012-12-10 09:12:48 and read 13647 times.

Quoting dk1967 (Reply 8):
Quoting moo (Reply 7):
As of 2008, there were more than 65,000 non-US citizens serving in the US armed forces - it would be difficult to prosecute them under such a law.

All US Navy officers must be US citizens, and all Navy pilots are officers.

While that is quite true, deck assignment staff are not necessarily commissioned officers, in fact I believe most are PO or below. I believe that would relieve them of this requirement ?

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: aeroweanie
Posted 2012-12-10 09:20:40 and read 13636 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
As of 2008, there were more than 65,000 non-US citizens serving in the US armed forces - it would be difficult to prosecute them under such a law.

Enlistment into the any branch of the U.S. military, by citizens of countries other than the United States is limited to those foreign nationals who are legally residing in the United States and possess an Immigration and Naturalization Service Alien Registration Card (INS Form I-151/551, commonly known as a "Green Card"). This then makes them "US entities" under ITAR, and restrictes in the same manner as a US citizen.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: Marcus
Posted 2012-12-10 10:43:30 and read 13580 times.

Quoting aeroweanie (Reply 10):
Enlistment into the any branch of the U.S. military, by citizens of countries other than the United States is limited to those foreign nationals who are legally residing in the United States and possess an Immigration and Naturalization Service Alien Registration Card (INS Form I-151/551, commonly known as a "Green Card"). This then makes them "US entities" under ITAR, and restrictes in the same manner as a US citizen.

In real life for recruitment purposes this is not followed to the letter.....

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: moo
Posted 2012-12-10 14:22:05 and read 13446 times.

Quoting aeroweanie (Reply 10):

In theory, great - the problem is, no other country is going to treat them as "US entities" so unless they voluntarily go back to the US, they can't be touched. The US can't have foreign banks freeze their accounts via IRS so no financial repercussions either.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: dragon6172
Posted 2012-12-10 14:52:03 and read 13416 times.

Quoting garnetpalmetto (Reply 3):
Most puzzling, at least to me is the last one. Note the two yellowshirts in the fencer's pose (crouched on one knee pointing down the deck) - on a CVN that'd be the signal for the shooter to fire the catapult to launch the aircraft. So in a non-CATOBAR environment...why is THAT particular signal necessary

They do that same signal on US Navy LHDs and LHAs for Harrier launches as well. Basically you get clearance to take off from the Air Boss in the tower, and a final signal from the yellow shirt that confirms that the flight deck is clear. As I recall they would run the throttles up to take off power on the Bosses clearance, and release the brakes when the yellow shirt gave that signal.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: Aar90
Posted 2012-12-10 16:11:37 and read 13360 times.

Quoting dragon6172 (Reply 13):

They do that same signal on US Navy LHDs and LHAs for Harrier launches as well. Basically you get clearance to take off from the Air Boss in the tower, and a final signal from the yellow shirt that confirms that the flight deck is clear. As I recall they would run the throttles up to take off power on the Bosses clearance, and release the brakes when the yellow shirt gave that signal.

The "Air Boss" doesn't get directly involved in the actual launch/recovery of an aircraft. He "authorizes" the launch/recovery of aircraft, but the actual launch is controlled by the catapult/arresting gear officer known as "The Shooter" ("yellow shirt" flight deck officer). That's the person who actually commands "Launch" by the signal you see [touch deck & point]. When you see two officers doing that, the person in front is in training and the actual Shooter is the person behind him.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: Geezer
Posted 2012-12-10 17:55:04 and read 13300 times.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 9):
While that is quite true, deck assignment staff are not necessarily commissioned officers, in fact I believe most are PO or below. I believe that would relieve them of this requirement ?

PO or "below"; While your overall statement is correct, the part about "PO"....( Petty Officer ) tends to point out something that I think most people unfamiliar with the Navy "ranking system" seem to become confused about; the lowest ranking "PO" is a P O Third Class; ( which is equal to any E-3 in the Army, Marines, or Air Force ); so.....there are ONLY two ranks below Petty Officer Third Class......E-1 (Seaman Recruit) and E-2 (Seaman), (or "Fireman" if your "specialty is a "hull" rate);

As a general rule, very, very few people ever make it to Petty Officer 1st class is a four year enlistment; to start with, you must have so much "time in rate" to even be eligible to take the test for the next step up; then, even when you DO take the test and pass it, the Navy only promotes to those "billets" which there is a "quota for"; frequently, the quota is zero, so NO ONE gets promoted to that billet. ( I know, it happened to me twice in a row; ended up being a 2nd class until my active duty time was up.) I passed the test for 1st class two times, (the second time with the 9th best score in the whole Navy, but there was "no need" for ANY more 1st class ME's, so I remained a 2nd class).

And yes, almost ALL of those guys you see scrambling around on the flight deck of carriers ARE "enlisted men".
(they're also all known as "airedales"; anyone having an aviation rating.)

My whole point being........you can't GET much "lower" than a "PO" (if the "PO" happens to be a 3rd class PO)

Charley

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: dragon6172
Posted 2012-12-10 18:11:46 and read 13288 times.

Quoting Aar90 (Reply 14):
The "Air Boss" doesn't get directly involved in the actual launch/recovery of an aircraft. He "authorizes" the launch/recovery of aircraft, but the actual launch is controlled by the catapult/arresting gear officer known as "The Shooter" ("yellow shirt" flight deck officer). That's the person who actually commands "Launch" by the signal you see [touch deck & point]. When you see two officers doing that, the person in front is in training and the actual Shooter is the person behind him.

I was referencing ships without catapults. And I suppose it depends on your view of things on how involved you think the Air Boss is. From experience, I can tell you that on a Gator Freighter the launch of helo's goes something like this:

Boss: "Dragon 14, from spot 1, clear for takeoff on LSE's signal"
Pilot: "Dragon 14 clear for takeoff on LSE signal"

Tower communicates to flight deck control to launch spot 1,
flight deck control communicates to spot 1 LSE to launch aircraft,
and then spot 1 LSE gives hand signals for launch.

For Harriers it is something like this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR7-3O4ldJ0

Description with time stamps

Boss: "Dragon 61, clear for takeoff on LSE's signal"
Pilot: "Dragon 61 clear for takeoff on LSE signal"

Tower communicates to flight deck control to launch,
flight deck control communicates to LSE to launch aircraft, (12 sec)

LSE signals pilot to power up (14 sec)

Pilot advances throttles, checks that nozzles move to vertical takeoff position, confirmed by LSE (24 sec)

return to forward thrust, thumbs up and salute LSE (32 sec)

LSE looks down flight deck to confirm deck is clear, there are yellow shirts at intervals along the foul line that give thumbs up to confirm deck is clear (34 sec)

LSE gives launch signal (36 sec)

Pilot releases brakes and away he goes (you can see some of the additional yellow shirts as the camera pans down the flight deck)

Either way, as I said, Boss gives clearance, yellow shirt gives launch signal.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: StudeDave
Posted 2012-12-11 11:23:41 and read 12994 times.

Quoting Geezer (Reply 15):
so.....there are ONLY two ranks below Petty Officer Third Class......E-1 (Seaman Recruit) and E-2 (Seaman), (or "Fireman" if your "specialty is a "hull" rate);

Uhhhh, no. There are THREE ranks below an E4 (aka PO3).
Those are E1 (recruit), E2 (Apprentice), and E3 (Airman, Seaman, or Fireman as the case may be).
The terms Airman, Seaman, and Fireman are placed in front of the E1 and E2 'ratings' as well.
In other words- an E1 in an Aviation rating would be known as an Airman Recruit,
and an E2 in the Deck Department would be a Seaman Apprentice.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: LMP737
Posted 2012-12-11 12:03:02 and read 12970 times.

Quoting StudeDave (Reply 17):
Those are E1 (recruit), E2 (Apprentice), and E3 (Airman, Seaman, or Fireman as the case may be).

They're the ones typically lugging around chocks and chains. Or down bellow in the galley or ships laundry.  

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: StudeDave
Posted 2012-12-11 12:35:56 and read 12953 times.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 18):
They're the ones typically lugging around chocks and chains

I know- I've been there, and done that!!!
Right before I retired (as an E6) I even did it 'for fun'!!!
Most of the young pups were slower then me.





StudeDave

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: Aar90
Posted 2012-12-11 20:48:30 and read 12801 times.

Quoting dragon6172 (Reply 16):
I was referencing ships without catapults. And I suppose it depends on your view of things on how involved you think the Air Boss is. From experience, I can tell you that on a Gator Freighter the launch of helo's goes something like this:

Boss: "Dragon 14, from spot 1, clear for takeoff on LSE's signal"
Pilot: "Dragon 14 clear for takeoff on LSE signal"

Tower communicates to flight deck control to launch spot 1,
flight deck control communicates to spot 1 LSE to launch aircraft,
and then spot 1 LSE gives hand signals for launch.

Perhaps in the Gator Navy this is true for normal peacetime ops; however, in a tactical environment the Air Boss will be radio silent as much as possible. His radio transmits quite a long distance while the "Mickey Mouse" headsets on the flight deck are much lower powered --and often not used in the CVN world... for tactical reasons. Hand/light signals only. Big-E/CVW-11 once operated 3 straight months (24-hour ops) on deployment without a single radio transmission from aboard the ship.

Bottom line is the launch/recovery of aircraft is actually done by the LSO/LSE/Shooter.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: pusserchef
Posted 2012-12-11 21:13:27 and read 12793 times.

Im pretty certain that most aircraft carrying capable Navies that their SOPs and signalling would be fairly common, not exact but common. Otherwise how have the few countries achieved successful launch and recoveries of other nations aircraft? (eg French Rafale on a US Carrier, a US A4 on the Australian Carrier in the late 70's (British designed carrier with American designed aircraft). And not even just for Carriers but for most ships that even carry helicopters only too (frigates, cruisers etc) their signalling would be very similar, once again not exact. So saying that the Chinese used a former US pilot/sailor to acquire these procedures may make a great story of which maybe true, but maybe not too.

When the Royal Australian Navy decommissioned its last carrier in the mid '80s, the HMAS Melbourne R21 (former HMS Majestic, a modified Majestic class Light Carrier designed in the UK) was towed from Sydney bound for China for breaking up. However, it hadnt been till the last decade when she actually had been broken up. Many stories had evolved about the Chinese used it to draw blueprints for the flight deck, (Majestic was the first carrier with the mirror ball and angled flight deck BUT was not the first operational with equipment due to construction pausing for seven years, when it was labelled as surplus to their needs, it was offered to the RAN and purchased).
Many times when RAN vessels visited China, crew members had taken photos of a still complete (but rusted/rusting) vessel.

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: Cadet985
Posted 2012-12-30 05:16:50 and read 11160 times.

I'm still suspicious of the Chinese having a carrier that's used solely for training, considering it's their only carrier.

Marc

Topic: RE: Rumor:US Navy Veterans On China's Aircraft Carrier
Username: zeke
Posted 2012-12-30 06:08:14 and read 11128 times.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 1):
I would put my money on Top Gun and Youtube.

More likely USN manuals (like the Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization (NATOPS)) that are available in the public domain.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/