PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Jeff Head said:

No...I am just not agreeing with you... I am just not ready to jump to a conclusion that I do not see yet.

Click to expand...

There is scepticism, nothing wrong with that. Then there is missing the forest for a tree. The latter gets old after many years. I am not the only one and not the first one who feels that way. Everyone succumbs to optical illusions, but when I challenge your ideas on that ground, you treat it as an attack personally, then interprets every subsequent statement as an insult. This is not the first occurrence. What it is is not disagreeing, it is inability of accepting challenges.

Jeff Head said:

You know, engineer, honestly I have respected your opinion and your knowledge in the past, even when I did not agree with it...

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, having many years of exchange with you, I never felt it. Then again, I am very cynical.

Jeff Head said:

This is it from the outside.
View attachment 20231

That is what I mean by coming up to the edge on each side.

Click to expand...

We are not going to see that. The Kuznetsov class just wasn't designed the same way.

Jeff Head said:

Bltizo, I have said all along that I am simply not ready to say that this is what others feel it may be.

I have never said it is definitely not.

Some folks want to discuss the details and why I feel that way. Some people take issue with it.

For those people interested, and clearly for me in my original post...the discussion is apparently not pointless.

Click to expand...

I sincerely disagree. I think discussing the details of the pictures -- which have been deliberately obfuscated -- as any basis of trying to determine the fundamental reliability of the pictures overall (i.e.: whether they reflect the actual situation) is indeed pointless.

I think discussing the details for the sake of the details is no problem -- AKA to determine what the picture may show if there was no deliberate obfuscation. But using the obfuscated details to determine in this case, whether or not the module assembly has begun or not is not a very logical task.

Aha...so the discussion is not so "pointless" after all!

No...it is not illogical. There are details revealed. Some of them can be very telling. So we simply disagree.

No big deal.

You are prepared to call if for your reasons...I am not, for my own.

Click to expand...

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying that details in all pictures are unimportant.
Details are obviously important -- as PLA watchers we get presented with PSed pictures all the time, and having an eye for detail often tells us whether something is real or a hoax.

But rather in this specific situation, trying to use a few iffy details of the obfuscated pictures as a basis for arguing for or against whether hangar module assembly has begun or not is, in my opinion, flawed. This is because we have to rely on a whole host of other things independent of the actual picture itself to try and ascertain the actual situation which the obfuscated picture may be presenting:

• the reliability of the source of the photos (in this case, fgfzy seems to have been quite consistent and reliable)
• the reasons for the obfuscation (again, in this case, the reasons are obvious and we've had past self censorship progressively as well)
• the past progression of construction of the particular project -- that is to say, did we have past photos or rumours which documented progressive development of a project prior to getting photos to reaching this stage (in this case, we've seen this hull at DL slowly starting to get together and we've seen pictures of other hangar modules, and it seems reasonable that they would be beginning to assemble the module now)
• most importantly, do we have any past or present reliable rumours regarding the project itself (in this case, we've had rumours of 001A in construction for months, predicted up to a year or more ago)

The above factors must all be taken together with the photo evidence we have to ultimately reach a conclusion. If one only takes photo evidence alone -- especially if it is deliberately doctored to avoid shedding details -- then I think it will hinder our predictive capability of what is actually occurring inreality.

Could it simply be that the Liaoning (and modification based on it) only has elevators on one side, and so the one side of the hangar is naturally thicker for whatever reasons? They may have decided that the potential additional space wasn't enough to pack more jets, and decided to put it to other use.

no_name said:

Could it simply be that the Liaoning (and modification based on it) only has elevators on one side, and so the one side of the hangar is naturally thicker for whatever reasons? They may have decided that the potential additional space wasn't enough to pack more jets, and decided to put it to other use.

Click to expand...

Or maybe the simplest answer is just that the obfuscation of the picture and the scenario depicted by the picture (module being lifted) led people to misinterpret what is actually there, leading to a variety of strange theories and bending-over-backwards to explain what is being incorrectly perceived.

======

seriously, we've all read and acknowledged jaybird's post #4475, where the first picture is again doctored to avoid showing details but helps to clarify what the actual overall structure and profile of the module is like???

While we are all wondering where the CV-16 is, and speculating if there is going to be a confrontation between the US Navy and PLAN, these pictures of the US Navy "commanders"(?) delegation visiting CV-16 yesterday (10/19) appeared on the chinese forum...

they USN Prospective Commanding Officers. i think that means officers about to get their first independent command?

shen said:

they USN Prospective Commanding Officers. i think that means officers about to get their first independent command?

Click to expand...

Well, I see two US Navy captains (colonels), and that seems old for their first independent commands.

Jeff Head said:

Sorry, engineer, my mind is "registering," just fine.

I pointed out my thoughts on it, and I stand by them. The hanger will extend to both sides of the vessel on their CV. The way this is shown, in both pictures, it does not do that.

Personally I will give it more time.

If it is indeed the hanger sections being installed on their second CV (and as I have said, it may well be), we will see it clearly soon enough.

Click to expand...

I fully concur Mr. Head, and Eng really no need to be disrespectful to one our most respected members, Mr. Head has put in his time, and he is indeed a real engineer, with specific vehicle accomplishments at Chance Vought by Mr Head's father Lee, who was a Naval Officer prior to working for Chance Vought, and Jeff also worked with Chance Vought, and his engineering interest and talents cover a vast spectrum.

Mr. Heads specific interests in Naval vessels and aircraft, are backed up by time aboard such vessels, and an understanding of how all that equipment works in concert, much like our beloved BD Popeye, two gentlemen who exude vast amounts of not only knowledge, but wisdom and humility. Many of us here on SDF look to you as well for those same qualities.

Really his hands on experience brings a measure of gravitas that supersede theoretical supposition?? a little respect is warranted, and as he often states, "we shall see". In other words the proof will come either way?

danielchin said:

... and speculating if there is going to be a confrontation between the US Navy and PLAN, these pictures of US Navy "commanders" visiting CV-16 yesterday ...

Click to expand...

These pics are illustrative of some very important and very hopeful things.

Despite all else, the PLAN and the PRC allowing US Naval officers this type of visit onto the Liaon ing speaks volumes.

Very glad to see this.

The US has had PLAN officers on its vessels as well and that type of exchange, and the lines of communication further up the chain that have to be in place to make it happen are, as I say, very hopeful things indeed.

Jeff Head said:

Here's what I mean:

Click to expand...

Jeff, I will not go over the first one you posted, as it is obviously a hypothetical drawing.

But the second one, where you showed " Edge of possible hanger module" is actually inner side of the hanger module. You can see in that hanger module how thick, or wide, those sectional stringer frames are for supporting hanger elevators and sponsons. And look at the thickness of supporting structures at the top part. That indicates a flight deck.
What we are seeing is one complete module of a section of the hanger deck. Hanger tanktop has been laid before that piece is hoisted on top.
There are not that many ship types that have this particular combination of structures. She is an air-craft carrier. No more, no less.