He's earned his credibility when it comes to tracking PLAN shipbuilding but it's also people like him who make our world a living hell for the majority of the population.
Ask anything Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Bolded text for more clarity.
Also, time for an update (10 September 2024):
003 CV: 1 confirmed
076 LHD: 1 confirmed and 1 more purported/expected
075 LHD: 1 confirmed and at least 2 more purported/expected
055 DDG: 4 confirmed and 4 more expected/purported
052D/DG DDG: 10 confirmed and at least 3 more expected/purported
054B FFG: 2 confirmed
054A/AG FFG: 4 confirmed and at least 6 more expected/purported
AFAIK there is no reliable list of pennant numbers in the public realm. Since the late 1990s PLAN has stopped using sail numbers (this caused a great deal of confusion on numbers produced for 039 for a start). Sites like Wikipedia reference Janes for some numbers, but I would take that sourcing with large piles of salt. Same goes for Chinese Wiki (and the total number of boats claimed in service etc there).
The US claim via ONI etc for 09III/IV is six hulls each. That was before 09IIIB started construction.
But if someone has better information, I'd certainly love to see it.
Why would they have to? This is only the latest in a series of attack pieces whose only "source" are some grainy sat photos of some cranes and a sub, and the rest is all fabricated. The very fact that this apparent major naval news did not make Naval News should tell you that no one other than tabloids and WSJ who's trying to become a tabloid take this seriously.
The Naval News author in question:
Naval News isn't necessarily a threshold for a story's credibility or lack thereof.
I have no issue with the publication/site itself, but the argument would be stronger if the weaknesses of the story itself was credited on its own problems rather than whether it was featured on Naval News lol.
Alex, who is also here on the forum, is a contributor to Naval News but he isn't the editor.
Of course his view as he wrote on X/twitter is overall reasonable, but it has no bearing on anything and I'm not sure why it's posted.
Overall I'm surprised anyone would make any link from this story, to Naval News or any of its writers to begin with.
Because there is no reason to.
The Chinese govt and military doesn't need to respond to claims made by media.
Imagine if it did so, and the kind of precedent it would set.
a PLAN allegedly nuclear sub allegedly sinks, and no mention of it in Naval News, the official newspaper of the Royal Navy, or Navy Times, the official newspaper of the USN, both of which should have been all over such a story? surely there are better, more apparent indicators that this story is perhaps not as reported, according to you.
there's no need to always have to find some remote angle to pick a bone with every single post that is not yours champ.
Correct, because those outlets are not credible for PLA matters to begin with, so whether a story is omitted or not by those outlets, it shouldn't change the assessment of our credibility wrt the original story.
Whether a post is "mine" or not (what does that even mean), is irrelevant. If I happen to see a post that is worth responding to, I will respond to it.
In this case, the underlying premise of your argument is incorrect, so I am offering a correction -- the omission of XYZ news story being reported from a few news outlets, should not have any bearing on our perception of whether XYZ news story is credible or not.
Overall, if one wants to criticize the credibility of this story (and there is indeed much to be skeptical about), the argument would be much stronger without alluding to whether it was reported on Naval News, or Navy Times or whatever.