Yes, capability enables intent. But capability certainly does not imply intent, nor is it the same as intent. The point was that it is the intent to build so many 055s in such a short period of time that is "eyebrow raising", NOT the capability of the Chinese naval industry to build them. That one enables the other is completely irrelevant to the fact that the latter is what is eyebrow raising, and not the former. You keep missing this point.
I dont' think I've ever suggested that the capability of the Chinese shipbuilding industry in building the ships like this was eyebrow raising -- in fact I think a page or so back I even said that such an eventuality would have been expected.
And in the beginning of my reply 2645 I did deliberately lay out that my surprise was towards their intent and scope.
It is not just a matter of whether the 055 fields more advanced anything, but whether these new subsystems actually impact the design and construction of the 055 in any meaningful way. Do you know whether a bigger CIC or the presence of an AAW commander's C&C facilities will somehow significantly delay or complicate or add risk to the design of the 055? And even taken in totality all of your alleged improvements do not constitute any real qualitative difference from the 052D. The 052D to 055 transition is certainly nothing like Spruance to Arleigh Burke, or Arleigh Burke to Zumwalt. Not even remotely close.
Okay, it appears there has been miscommunication in this point.
If your argument about 055 just being a larger 052D is meant to only mean it in terms of difficulty of construction then I don't have a position on it.
I was only focused on the specific part about 055 being a larger 052D in terms of advancement.
What are you talking about here? You are now clearly losing track of the argument. The evolutionary nature of the 055 is not Subotai's assertion, it was my assertion as a response to his post. Why would you even ask if that was part of his assertion??? He implied that the 055's rapid turnout may be the "fruition" of all these technological advancements, and I said the 055 is not a great advancement over the 052D, meaning that whatever technology allowed the 052D to be produced in large numbers will allow the 055 to be produced in large numbers, no need for any "fruition" of new technologies.
I'm asking if that was part of his assertion, exactly because his original point didn't make any point about evolutionary or revolutionary advancement of 055 vs 052D, and to demonstrate you're the one who brought it up first.
He said that advancements in computing/design could have been an aspect in allowing the shipbuilding industry to turn out 055s like we are seeing so quickly and so early, and I don't think you've made an argument to suggest such a possibility is unlikely.
So I'm saying that bringing in the evolutionary or revolutionary nature of 055 is not relevant to his suggestion.
If you wanted to suggest that advancements in computing/design didn't have a role in 055's production as we see it, then we need to enter a thought experiment where the Navy hypothetically did not have access to the advancements in computing/design from the last few years or half decade or so, and were still required to design 055 to the same standards as reality, and then consider whether they would have been as willing to green light the same rapid and early production in their "without last few years of advancements in computing/design-universe" as our reality where these advancements did occur.
in other words, if the goal is to prove that the advancements in computing/design didn't have a role in 055's production, we need to compare two similar (preferably identical) projects with similar parameters where the only difference is that one has access to those advancements and where another does not, with the result being whether the one without those advancements would have built 055s at the same rate and early state as the one with advancements.
