055 DDG Large Destroyer Thread

[Iron Man]

I added the red ellipse to the picture from Yesterday at 4:19 PM

I'll be updating this post ...

This photo proves what for you, exactly? You did not even REMOTELY answer any part of my post. I also feel at this point that you are not really following or able to follow the logic of this latter part of the thread and that it is no longer useful to continue with you here. I would also be repeating the exact same things I've said to Bltizo with you.

Actually I think I do have some rights to default assumptions here, because information from big shrimps can change the newest up to date information quite quickly, and their ambiguity means we have to try and apply some common sense to them.

Also, just for the record the suggestion of an 8 ship first batch goes back to 2015 from fzgfzy

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Your common sense is NOT automatically "Common Sense" just because you want to apply your personal proclivities to an ambiguous statement.

FYI, for my last post where I wrote "Instead, let's take a step back and think what his statement means -- is it that there will be more than 8 ships or less than 8 ships?" I was obviously talking about it in context of "will there be more than 8 ships or less than 8 ships [in the first batch]". I wasn't talking about the entire 055 programme/production run -- who knows how many 055s and various 055 variants may be built in future.

And, what I implied by "Chinese Navy's overall trajectory in the foreseeable future" I was talking about near term future, like say half a decade or slightly more, like which is about the time period where we will likely see the first batch of 055s enter service, whether they are 8 ships or slightly more. And when I talk about overall trajectory I mean the increase of Chinese Navy's blue water deployments, carrier/amphibious assault ship escort, and likely plans for overall advancing combat capability, all of which 055s would facilitate and where it would be logical to consider an increased demand of 055s for those missions.

I'm obviously not trying to conflate the two, what good would that do me when the consistent position I've held has been always about the first batch? What good would it do me to argue that the overall production run would be more than 8 ships, that would just be silly and frankly over-ambitious for me to try and predict how big the entire production run may be at this stage.

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

BTW, you are ALREADY predicting first batch production at double digits, but somehow it is "silly and over-ambitious" for you to predict that the "overall production run would be more than 8 ships".

In any case, you would have been more reasonable had you meant total ship production, but you are now apparently attempting to posit your personal view of 055 first batch production numbers in terms of the "forseeable future" and PLAN trends (as if yours were somehow the default assumption we should all have), in which case it even further boils down to nothing other than your personal opinion.

You don't "have to" but I think it would definitely be quite helpful for both of us if you knew which modernization programme had supposedly replaced the VLS crane as you have suggested. It's not like that is such hard of a thing to do either.
For example, in my last post and in a post before that I was able to name the modernization programmes of relevance -- the "CG Phased Modernization Programme" which is what the USS Cowpens, Gettysburg and so on are being modernized under. Before that, there was the "Cruiser Conversion Programme" that I posted in #3092, which is the only programme name that has been linked with the notion of a VLS crane replacement ("CCP probably will include AEGIS upgrades (bringing all ships to a common baseline), removal of the VLS reload cranes (providing 6 additional VLS cells), replacement of CIWS by ESSM, addition of Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)")

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

However I was never able to find what the finalized details of the Cruiser Conversion Programme was nor the ships that were modernized under it, although some articles at the time also did not mention a VLS crane replacement, and I've found no photos of Ticos between 2002 and now have shown a replacement of the VLS crane module, making me wonder if the original CCP VLS module replacement plan had :

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

The most recent link I found which talked about VLS crane deletion was this link from 2014 (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), however again it doesn't mention a specific programme nor does it mention a given ship name, and with the photos that I had before including the oldest, newest and a middle Tico class cruiser all still retaining their VLS crane modules I think

So, basically, what you've found is stuff that was not able to lay out any specific details about crane deletion on which ships under which programs, which again means absolutely zilch no matter how many different ways you repackage the same logical fallacy.

On the contrary I would say that increasing the Ticonderoga class' armament from 122 to 128 VLS cells most definitely is sexy and would be worthy a mention or even its own bullet point in any sort of article about its modernization.

I've provided recent photos of various different aged Ticos all still retaining their VLS cranes, as well as articles detailing various modifications over the years including the CCP from 2002 (of which one article mentions a VLS replacement but which others do not and where I can find no photos of any Ticos with VLS crane replacement), and the CG PMP from 2015 (which do not mention a VLS replacement).
The fact that there are a few articles which seem to suggest that a modernization programme does include a replacement of their VLS crane means I am willing to entertain the possibility that there may be some Ticos with VLS cranes that have been replaced, or that maybe the VLS crane replacement is included as part of the CG PMP, but the absence of a clear statement in official USN, industry and affiliated media about what is quite a significant modification is rather suspect.

With the photo and article evidence I've laid out, I would argue that the burden of proof lays as much on you as me, or even more so on you than me, considering the evidence for your argument is looking rather slim -- from what I see, the only basis of your position is that 2014 article, with few recent articles elsewhere backing that position up. For all we know that 2014 article might have been a mistake by the author, or maybe in 2014 they were considering replacing the VLS crane module but by 2015 they had decided against it. Who knows.

Heck, that 2014 article even says that the crane "continues to be removed from the Ticonderoga class ships" suggesting that the cranes have already been removed from existing/past Ticonderoga class ships. In that case, shouldn't it be rather easy for you to find a photo of a Tico class' VLS bank without the crane module, and shouldn't the burden of that evidence lay with you?

Your photos mean nothing, and you know it. What YOU need to find is contrarian photographic evidence based on the most recent modernization program, whether that be CG PMP or some other program. The fact that you do not find a crane deletion mentioned inside the CG PMP articles you've found so far is NOT evidence that this is or is not happening under this program or some other program, whether or not you personally find this detail sexy. And whether or not it is or is not easy for me to find a photo showing 128 cells has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on whether the burden of proof lies with me or with you. You can verbally squirm and do your intellectual judo all you want. The bottom line is that we have multiple articles that state cranes will be/are being deleted, and NONE that state otherwise, and NO photos that prove otherwise. So no, the burden of proof remains on you, and you alone.

 

[Jura The idiot]

This photo proves what ...

except of fanbois, sources give info to this effect:
"Also, a CG has 122 VLS cells, not 126 as stated in the article. Both launchers are arrayed in eight modules of eight, but there are three slots taken up both fore and aft by the loading cranes, which are no longer used but were not replaced by additional missile cells."

these sentences are from the discussion below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and this info has been accepted by the author:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

52ndstate

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thanks for the correction, I have no idea why I thought 126.

now
Iron Man
I'm all ears

 

[dingyibvs]

It's pretty obvious what fzgfzy meant by his post. For those who can't read Chinese, judge by yourself:

"I said before the first batch will be 8 055s, today I can say, those are yesterday's numbers."

If he meant anything other than how Blitzo interpreted it then it would be intentionally misleading.

 

[Orthan]

112 VLS

Has this number been confirmed? IMO its doubtful that we can conclude the number of VLS launchers based on CGI images, but i could be wrong.

 

[Blitzo]

Your common sense is NOT automatically "Common Sense" just because you want to apply your personal proclivities to an ambiguous statement.

You are free to disagree with my logic or my interpretation of his statements if you wish, nothing wrong with that.
Much of the PLA watching's nitty gritty boils down to minor different interpretations of big shrimp words and rumours. How defensable or acceptable an interpretation may be is up to the rest of the community to judge for themselves.

Oh, for cryin' out loud.

BTW, you are ALREADY predicting first batch production at double digits, but somehow it is "silly and over-ambitious" for you to predict that the "overall production run would be more than 8 ships".

No, I'm saying it's silly and over ambitious for me to try and estimate what the number of the overall production may be, like trying to put it to a specific number at this stage.
I expect the overall production run will be larger than 8 ships and obviously larger than whatever the first batch is -- however at this stage I am reticient to put a number on what the overall production number is.

In any case, you would have been more reasonable had you meant total ship production, but you are now apparently attempting to posit your personal view of 055 first batch production numbers in terms of the "forseeable future" and PLAN trends (as if yours were somehow the default assumption we should all have), in which case it even further boils down to nothing other than your personal opinion.

Well I've been talking only about the first batch this whole time regarding the greater than 8 ships thing.
And yes, it is my opinion based on my assessment of the Chinese Navy's requirements and trajectories from the information we have now and based on what I believe to be a logical interpretation of the limited information fzgfzy and other big shrimps have given us.

Feel free to disagree.

So, basically, what you've found is stuff that was not able to lay out any specific details about crane deletion on which ships under which programs, which again means absolutely zilch no matter how many different ways you repackage the same logical fallacy.

You're effectively saying the lack of evidence does not equal the evidence of absence, yes? Or putting it another way, it's basically impossible for me to prove a negative in this case?

I would agree with that, but considering the argument that each of us are making and considering the balance of evidence right now (both photographic and textual) I think the burden for providing the evidence is on you rather than me.

Of course, the reason I posted those articles is related to my expectation of whether reports detialing the modernization programme would include something like deleting the VLS crane, but seeing as we disagree on this matter then it takes us back to effectively square one.

Your photos mean nothing, and you know it. What YOU need to find is contrarian photographic evidence based on the most recent modernization program, whether that be CG PMP or some other program. The fact that you do not find a crane deletion mentioned inside the CG PMP articles you've found so far is NOT evidence that this is or is not happening under this program or some other program, whether or not you personally find this detail sexy. And whether or not it is or is not easy for me to find a photo showing 128 cells has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on whether the burden of proof lies with me or with you. You can verbally squirm and do your intellectual judo all you want. The bottom line is that we have multiple articles that state cranes will be/are being deleted, and NONE that state otherwise, and NO photos that prove otherwise. So no, the burden of proof remains on you, and you alone.

How do my photos mean nothing? I think it at least shows that the 2002 CCP modernization which first said that there was a crane deletion as part of it most likely did not include a crane deletion in practice. Perhaps they revised their original plan, or whatever, but it virtually confirms if not confirms that the 2002 CCP modernization did not include a crane deletion.
Sorting that out helps us substantially, because now we can just focus on the contents of the 2014 article instead.


You can also squirm and do your own mental gymnastics how you want -- we have multiple articles detailing the components of the modernization which do not mention the VLS crane deletion. By the way, you're the one that first brought up the whole "VLS crane replacement isn't sexy" line, not me. If you were going to argue that my opinion on it didn't matter than why did you bring up your opinion about the VLS crane replacement's sexiness to begin with?

The 2014 article also says that the crane deletion is "continuing" suggesting it's already happened for existing cruisers by the time the article was written. Seeing as you're the one arguing for the crane deletion has having occurred as part of whatever modernization process the 2014 article is referring to, shouldn't it be up to you to find the evidence to back up your statement?
After all, it's nigh impossible for me to prove a negative but it's easy for you can prove a positive, just produce a photo of a Tico VLS block without the VLS crane module.
(Also, don't you think it's been a bit weird that I'm the one who's made all the effort to produce photos and articles in this discussion so far, even though I think we both know it's difficult to prove a negative? So I'd be overjoyed if you could provide some of your own to back up your position)

Or, OTOH if you are arguing that only the USS Cowpens, Gettysburg and those other ships as part of CG PMP are going to get the crane deletion -- or putting it another way, that the 2014 article is referring to CG PMP as the modernization programme then neither of us will be able to provide proof for either of our positions because we will have to wait until likely 2020 for the first ships as part of CG PMP to return to the fleet to get photos of their VLS banks.


I'm also interested in which "multiple articles" you're talking about regarding cranes will be/are being deleted? Is it the 2014 article, or are there others? Because the only other articles I was able to find about crane deletion go back to the 2002 CCP modernization programme (which I included in my previous posts), but given they are from well over a decade ago and we have yet to see any photos of Ticos with deleted cranes it is probably safe to assume that the CCP modernization in the end did not include replacing the VLS crane. So I have to assume that the other "multiple articles" you talk about have been more recent?

 

[jobjed]

Has this number been confirmed? IMO its doubtful that we can conclude the number of VLS launchers based on CGI images, but i could be wrong.

Those CGI are drawn by someone who is able to see the 055 under construction in person. If he draws 7 rows of 16 cells, it's most likely that 055 does have 112 VLS cells.

 

[FORBIN]

Mk-41 2 by Ticonderoga and AB Flight I/II the crane take the place of 3 cells

 

[Iron Man]

except of fanbois, sources give info to this effect:
"Also, a CG has 122 VLS cells, not 126 as stated in the article. Both launchers are arrayed in eight modules of eight, but there are three slots taken up both fore and aft by the loading cranes, which are no longer used but were not replaced by additional missile cells."

these sentences are from the discussion below

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

and this info has been accepted by the author:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

52ndstate

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Thanks for the correction, I have no idea why I thought 126.

now
Iron Man
I'm all ears

LOL what? You can't possibly be serious trying to use the random comment of a random internet nobody as some kind of authoritative "source" for your claim. Need you sink so low?

You are free to disagree with my logic or my interpretation of his statements if you wish, nothing wrong with that. Much of the PLA watching's nitty gritty boils down to minor different interpretations of big shrimp words and rumours. How defensable or acceptable an interpretation may be is up to the rest of the community to judge for themselves.

Well I've been talking only about the first batch this whole time regarding the greater than 8 ships thing.
And yes, it is my opinion based on my assessment of the Chinese Navy's requirements and trajectories from the information we have now and based on what I believe to be a logical interpretation of the limited information fzgfzy and other big shrimps have given us.

Feel free to disagree.

This all sounds reasonable. Certainly more than you trying to claim some kind of right to possess the default assumptions.

You're effectively saying the lack of evidence does not equal the evidence of absence, yes? Or putting it another way, it's basically impossible for me to prove a negative in this case?

I would agree with that, but considering the argument that each of us are making and considering the balance of evidence right now (both photographic and textual) I think the burden for providing the evidence is on you rather than me.

Of course, the reason I posted those articles is related to my expectation of whether reports detialing the modernization programme would include something like deleting the VLS crane, but seeing as we disagree on this matter then it takes us back to effectively square one.

Your logic seems to be slacking here. I AM saying the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I am certainly NOT saying that it's impossible for you to prove a negative in this case. This is a complete non sequitur, yet another logical fallacy. The negative for you is to provide an article specifically stating that the crane was NOT deleted with the latest modernization, or to provide a photo showing non-deletion of the crane from a cruiser that was recently modernized. This is somehow "impossible" for you?

How do my photos mean nothing? I think it at least shows that the 2002 CCP modernization which first said that there was a crane deletion as part of it most likely did not include a crane deletion in practice. Perhaps they revised their original plan, or whatever, but it virtually confirms if not confirms that the 2002 CCP modernization did not include a crane deletion.
Sorting that out helps us substantially, because now we can just focus on the contents of the 2014 article instead.

You can also squirm and do your own mental gymnastics how you want -- we have multiple articles detailing the components of the modernization which do not mention the VLS crane deletion. By the way, you're the one that first brought up the whole "VLS crane replacement isn't sexy" line, not me. If you were going to argue that my opinion on it didn't matter than why did you bring up your opinion about the VLS crane replacement's sexiness to begin with?

The 2014 article also says that the crane deletion is "continuing" suggesting it's already happened for existing cruisers by the time the article was written. Seeing as you're the one arguing for the crane deletion has having occurred as part of whatever modernization process the 2014 article is referring to, shouldn't it be up to you to find the evidence to back up your statement?
After all, it's nigh impossible for me to prove a negative but it's easy for you can prove a positive, just produce a photo of a Tico VLS block without the VLS crane module.
(Also, don't you think it's been a bit weird that I'm the one who's made all the effort to produce photos and articles in this discussion so far, even though I think we both know it's difficult to prove a negative? So I'd be overjoyed if you could provide some of your own to back up your position)

Or, OTOH if you are arguing that only the USS Cowpens, Gettysburg and those other ships as part of CG PMP are going to get the crane deletion -- or putting it another way, that the 2014 article is referring to CG PMP as the modernization programme then neither of us will be able to provide proof for either of our positions because we will have to wait until likely 2020 for the first ships as part of CG PMP to return to the fleet to get photos of their VLS banks.

Again, it is not in any way, shape, or form "nigh impossible" for you to demonstrate your case. This is a giant straw man erected as high as possible to dramatize the futility of beating it down. If your case is as you claim it to be, you really should have no problem finding an article saying something like "oops, we were planning to delete the crane but that idea was scrapped, our bad". See what I did there? Sound familiar?

As for the photos, you provided a photo of 1) USS Bunker Hill, a cruiser long past its prime, had its refit long ago, and scheduled to literally be the first to hit the graveyard in two years time, 2) USS Port Royal, the newest cruiser whose modernization slot has not even been assigned yet, and 3) USS Anzio, a cruiser that is scheduled to go into modernization THIS YEAR. I have already said all this to you and you have not contested any of it, so why are you still wringing your hands about having provided so much 'relevant' photographic evidence, when it's abundantly clear none of them are relevant? I'll give you credit where at least your photos come with names and dates.

For the Ticonderoga PMP, I have been careful in this thread to not definitively tie crane deletion to this program since it's entirely possible that the crane is being/was removed outside of any program (remember that it's modular), and an actual 8-cell replacement is what is in store for the PMP rather than just crane deletion. Or crane deletion is actually happening entirely within the auspices of this PMP program. Or it's been a patchwork of updates via various methods, at least as far as the crane is concerned. There are a number of possibilities, none of which are definitively answered by any of the articles.

I'm also interested in which "multiple articles" you're talking about regarding cranes will be/are being deleted? Is it the 2014 article, or are there others? Because the only other articles I was able to find about crane deletion go back to the 2002 CCP modernization programme (which I included in my previous posts), but given they are from well over a decade ago and we have yet to see any photos of Ticos with deleted cranes it is probably safe to assume that the CCP modernization in the end did not include replacing the VLS crane. So I have to assume that the other "multiple articles" you talk about have been more recent?

Here is another article from Global Security in 2016:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Planned armament improvements include deletion of the at-sea reload cranes in the VLS complexes to permit carrying six more missiles and the installation of two 25-mm Mk 38 Bushmaster chain guns in Mk 88 mountings. The number of Mk 137 launchers for the SRBOC system has been doubled to eight (with the system itself now designated Mk 50 vice Mk 36), and the ability to launch Nulka hovering decoys would be added. EHF SATCOM capabilities have been added to take advantage of the latest imagery datalinks, and internal communications systems are being upgraded."

It doesn't state whether these improvements would be added simultaneously or incrementally or whether they are part of a single modernization program.

Before you impugn the veracity of either of the articles I'd like to see just ONE article from you stating the crane was not in fact deleted. You would think that if the crane was so sexy and they decided to reverse their plans for it, somebody would have put something into writing about it by now.

 

[Blitzo]

This all sounds reasonable. Certainly more than you trying to claim some kind of right to possess the default assumptions.

I wasn't aware of myself trying to claim any sort of right to possess default assumptions.
But okay, it seems like at least this part is settled.

Your logic seems to be slacking here. I AM saying the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, but I am certainly NOT saying that it's impossible for you to prove a negative in this case. This is a complete non sequitur, yet another logical fallacy. The negative for you is to provide an article specifically stating that the crane was NOT deleted with the latest modernization, or to provide a photo showing non-deletion of the crane from a cruiser that was recently modernized. This is somehow "impossible" for you?

It is rather impossible yes, for a two reasons:

1: the CG PMP modernization has yet to be complete, as my last article detailed, the first cruisers of the CG PMP are due to re-enter service. We'd have to wait for a picture of the cruiser's VLS post CG-PMP. How often the USN will choose to release photos of the CG PMP update is out of both of our hands.
2: why would an article about the modernization specifically state that the crane was NOT deleted? That assumes an expectation that such an upgrade was originally on the cards or planned and then subequently revised, and also assumes that such an upgrade not occurring would be worthy of mentioning in the first place... aka it assumes that such an upgrade is a default position for the USN and if it was deviated from then it would be a mention-worthy thing.

Again, it is not in any way, shape, or form "nigh impossible" for you to demonstrate your case. This is a giant straw man erected as high as possible to dramatize the futility of beating it down. If your case is as you claim it to be, you really should have no problem finding an article saying something like "oops, we were planning to delete the crane but that idea was scrapped, our bad". See what I did there? Sound familiar?

That would assume such an replacement was ever seriously on the cards to begin with, or that such a replacement would be considered a "change" from the default position to begin with. More on this in the last paragraph of my reply.

As for the photos, you provided a photo of 1) USS Bunker Hill, a cruiser long past its prime, had its refit long ago, and scheduled to literally be the first to hit the graveyard in two years time, 2) USS Port Royal, the newest cruiser whose modernization slot has not even been assigned yet, and 3) USS Anzio, a cruiser that is scheduled to go into modernization THIS YEAR. I have already said all this to you and you have not contested any of it, so why are you still wringing your hands about having provided so much 'relevant' photographic evidence, when it's abundantly clear none of them are relevant? I'll give you credit where at least your photos come with names and dates.

Those photos, as I said in my previous post, are relevant for demonstrating the CCP upgrade of the early 2000s did not include a crane replacement, because if the CCP upgrade did include a crane replacement we would likely see it in those photos for those three cruisers.

For the Ticonderoga PMP, I have been careful in this thread to not definitively tie crane deletion to this program since it's entirely possible that the crane is being/was removed outside of any program (remember that it's modular), and an actual 8-cell replacement is what is in store for the PMP rather than just crane deletion. Or crane deletion is actually happening entirely within the auspices of this PMP program. Or it's been a patchwork of updates via various methods, at least as far as the crane is concerned. There are a number of possibilities, none of which are definitively answered by any of the articles.

Sure, it's possible that a VLS replacement is being done not under the CG PMP, but then wouldn't it be fairly easy to find an article which happens to mention a VLS crane replacement or a photo of a Tico which may have already gone under such a hypothetical upgrade?

Here is another article from Global Security in 2016:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

"Planned armament improvements include deletion of the at-sea reload cranes in the VLS complexes to permit carrying six more missiles and the installation of two 25-mm Mk 38 Bushmaster chain guns in Mk 88 mountings. The number of Mk 137 launchers for the SRBOC system has been doubled to eight (with the system itself now designated Mk 50 vice Mk 36), and the ability to launch Nulka hovering decoys would be added. EHF SATCOM capabilities have been added to take advantage of the latest imagery datalinks, and internal communications systems are being upgraded."

It doesn't state whether these improvements would be added simultaneously or incrementally or whether they are part of a single modernization program.

I'm aware of that global security article.
However, that article is also detailing one of the earliest proposed upgrade (that's why it's at the beginning of the article, and it's why more recent upgrade programes like CG PMP are at the bottom of the article), and is rather obvious given the upgrade package mentions "installation of two 25-mm Mk 38 Bushmater chain guns in Mk 88 mountings" -- the Bushmaster chain guns in Mk 38/Mk 88s have been present on Ticos for years. In fact, I believe Ticos are all using Mk 38 mod 2 mounts now (the ones with the EO/IR targeting ball and remote control option, whereas Mk38 originally were manually trained)

In other words, that first paragraph from global security obviously isn't referencing a recent proposed upgrade but a very early proposed upgrade. Considering the paragraph it is part of begins with "During early 1990s overhauls, ships had the 5" 54 cal guns upgraded to Mk 45 Mod. 1, the Phalanx CIWS systems upgraded to Block 1 and the forecastle deck area strengthened to prevent cracking. Planned armament improvements include..." and the next paragraph begins with "Since 1994, ship self-defense capability improvements have been limited to the installation of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system on four ships. In 1999..."
.... and as one reads down the page we go from the late 1990s to 2000s and to the 2010s to the present. Put all the above together, and I think your interpretation of that first paragraph as being "recent" is very incorrect.

Before you impugn the veracity of either of the articles I'd like to see just ONE article from you stating the crane was not in fact deleted. You would think that if the crane was so sexy and they decided to reverse their plans for it, somebody would have put something into writing about it by now.

I would dispute whether such a demand is logical, because that would assume the USN choosing to not delete the crane is worthy of mentioning, and thus also assume that deleting the crane should be the "default" position to take.
OTOH, I believe that retaining the crane would be the "default" position to take, and that if it were to be replaced then such a change would be mentioned, whereas "not deleting" the crane is not a "change" from the default position and thus not worth mentioning.

I think our different positions boils down to what we see as the "default" position. We clearly both think that a "change" from the default position would be worthy of an article or some kind of mention, but your "default" position is that you think a VLS crane change would/should occur based on your interpretation of some articles/evidence, thus if it didn't occur or wasn't part of a modernization programme then it would likely be mentioned because it is a "change", whereas if it did occur or was part of a modernization programme then it is not worth mentioning as it isn't a "change".
OTOH my "default" position is I think a VLS crane change would not occur based on my interpretation of the same articles/evidence, thus if it didn't occur or wasn't part of a modernization programme then it wouldn't be mentioned as it is not a "change", whereas if it did occur or was part of a modernization programme then it is worthy of being mentioned because it would be a "change"

 

[Iron Man]

I wasn't aware of myself trying to claim any sort of right to possess default assumptions.
But okay, it seems like at least this part is settled.

So I guess you didn't say this:

Actually I think I do have some rights to default assumptions here, because information from big shrimps can change the newest up to date information quite quickly, and their ambiguity means we have to try and apply some common sense to them.

"I wasn't aware of myself trying to claim any sort of right to possess default assumptions" and
"Actually I think I do have some rights to default assumptions here" don't really fit well together in our universe, but whatever. I look forward to your next feat of gymnastics here.

It is rather impossible yes, for a two reasons:

1: the CG PMP modernization has yet to be complete, as my last article detailed, the first cruisers of the CG PMP are due to re-enter service. We'd have to wait for a picture of the cruiser's VLS post CG-PMP. How often the USN will choose to release photos of the CG PMP update is out of both of our hands.
2: why would an article about the modernization specifically state that the crane was NOT deleted? That assumes an expectation that such an upgrade was originally on the cards or planned and then subequently revised, and also assumes that such an upgrade not occurring would be worthy of mentioning in the first place... aka it assumes that such an upgrade is a default position for the USN and if it was deviated from then it would be a mention-worthy thing.

That would assume such an replacement was ever seriously on the cards to begin with, or that such a replacement would be considered a "change" from the default position to begin with. More on this in the last paragraph of my reply.

We don't have to wait for "completion" of the entire program, just the first ship. I don't know when this latest program started. I only provided a quote from an article listing two ships in 2015 and 2016, when the program itself could have started in 2014, 2013, or even earlier. Of course there has been an expectation that such an upgrade was in the works. If you count the articles from the last decade in addition to the ones from the last few years, this exact upgrade has been in the works for quite a long time, so you trying to claim the default assumption here is about as humorously futile as it gets. Just because it's been so protracted doesn't give you the right to claim away the default assumption without any shred of evidence to the contrary.

Those photos, as I said in my previous post, are relevant for demonstrating the CCP upgrade of the early 2000s did not include a crane replacement, because if the CCP upgrade did include a crane replacement we would likely see it in those photos for those three cruisers.

Again, this is irrelevant because there are a minimum of two articles from recent years saying the crane is or will be getting deleted, so if the cranes weren't deleted then, it certainly doesn't have any impact on them getting deleted NOW.

Sure, it's possible that a VLS replacement is being done not under the CG PMP, but then wouldn't it be fairly easy to find an article which happens to mention a VLS crane replacement or a photo of a Tico which may have already gone under such a hypothetical upgrade?

If a crane got removed but the module itself was not yet upgraded, it wouldn't necessarily make news. The difficulty is almost certainly not merely the crane removal itself but rather the upgrade from the dedicated 5-cell module to the dedicated 8-cell module, which would probably have to be done during refit. If it was so easy as removing the crane and replacing it with 3 VL tubes, it would already have been done long ago. What I assume is going on in the news sector is the conflation of the crane removal with a simultaneous 8-cell module replacement, while this may or may not actually be the case in practice.

I'm aware of that global security article.
However, that article is also detailing one of the earliest proposed upgrade (that's why it's at the beginning of the article, and it's why more recent upgrade programes like CG PMP are at the bottom of the article), and is rather obvious given the upgrade package mentions "installation of two 25-mm Mk 38 Bushmater chain guns in Mk 88 mountings" -- the Bushmaster chain guns in Mk 38/Mk 88s have been present on Ticos for years. In fact, I believe Ticos are all using Mk 38 mod 2 mounts now (the ones with the EO/IR targeting ball and remote control option, whereas Mk38 originally were manually trained)

In other words, that first paragraph from global security obviously isn't referencing a recent proposed upgrade but a very early proposed upgrade. Considering the paragraph it is part of begins with "During early 1990s overhauls, ships had the 5" 54 cal guns upgraded to Mk 45 Mod. 1, the Phalanx CIWS systems upgraded to Block 1 and the forecastle deck area strengthened to prevent cracking. Planned armament improvements include..." and the next paragraph begins with "Since 1994, ship self-defense capability improvements have been limited to the installation of the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) system on four ships. In 1999..."
.... and as one reads down the page we go from the late 1990s to 2000s and to the 2010s to the present. Put all the above together, and I think your interpretation of that first paragraph as being "recent" is very incorrect.

I already told you those upgrades aren't necessarily coincident in time and space (in fact they are definitely not), and I also did NOT in fact state that the first paragraph is "recent", or more specifically that all of the upgrades in the first paragraph are "recent". In fact though there is a vaguely distinguishable trend towards later dates towards the bottom of the article, the dates actually skip around frequently in that article, so being placed at the top or bottom isn't some kind of judge of "recentness", at least as far as that article is concerned.

I would dispute whether such a demand is logical, because that would assume the USN choosing to not delete the crane is worthy of mentioning, and thus also assume that deleting the crane should be the "default" position to take.
OTOH, I believe that retaining the crane would be the "default" position to take, and that if it were to be replaced then such a change would be mentioned, whereas "not deleting" the crane is not a "change" from the default position and thus not worth mentioning.

I think our different positions boils down to what we see as the "default" position. We clearly both think that a "change" from the default position would be worthy of an article or some kind of mention, but your "default" position is that you think a VLS crane change would/should occur based on your interpretation of some articles/evidence, thus if it didn't occur or wasn't part of a modernization programme then it would likely be mentioned because it is a "change", whereas if it did occur or was part of a modernization programme then it is not worth mentioning as it isn't a "change".
OTOH my "default" position is I think a VLS crane change would not occur based on my interpretation of the same articles/evidence, thus if it didn't occur or wasn't part of a modernization programme then it wouldn't be mentioned as it is not a "change", whereas if it did occur or was part of a modernization programme then it is worthy of being mentioned because it would be a "change"

As I stated above, you don't have ANY articles to support your position that the default should be no crane deletion, whereas I have multiple articles to support mine that crane deletion has been in the works for over a decade, and is likely coming to fruition now.