CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

They mean different hulls.



Then it will be a second 001A (STOBAR) or 001B (CATOBAR on a Liaoning hull). But we all expect it as a different hull than Liaoning, so we call it 002.

It is a simple system.

Not quite so simple, I think.

What if the second domestic carrier (CV-18, for Iron Man) uses say, a similar hull to Liaoning, but with new propulsion, new island, catapults instead of ski jump, significantly enlarged and reconfigured flight deck?

So using mere "hull similarity" as the line between one class vs another is too arbitrary IMO.

It is far better in this case to just use the characteristics that have been assigned to each respective designation over the years of rumours.

 

[Intrepid]

001A, 002, etc. are inofficial placeholders for ships that yet not named. After the ships get official numbers and names we will use them insted. And after the dimensions can be measured and their outlines be drawn they will be divided into classes.

We do not know wether the next Chinese aircraft carrier gets the number CV-17. What we know is, that it has the same hull as Liaoning, because we could watch it growing with the same anatomy. And we know that it is a little bit different in deckshape and the island, so we call it 001A until it is named.

 

[Iron Man]

Because by ignoring the designations like 001A or 002, you will remove much of the basis for characteristics of those designations in the first place. In other words, I interpret the idea of "it could be anything" is similar to saying "all the previous rumours about the characteristics assigned to each respective designation are not credible".

Rather the reverse is true. By calling CV-18 "002" you are trying to ascribe certain assumptions about the carrier that have the appearance of authority or legitimacy when we both know this is not the case. I reemphasize that using "002" over "CV-18" on the face of it provides you absolutely no additional information other than "different class from 001". What you include in addition to this is your personal speculation. Not including various implications in a designator does not in any way preclude you from actually talking about them or believing their veracity, it simply denies you the role of being the de facto truth holder, so to speak. That's the real power of the name; it allows you to subtly set the conditions for discussion in your favor, whether you are consciously doing this or not.

The nature of big shrimps and navigating the Chinese boards means we cannot always find the exact post from two or three years ago or whenever when they said something, so that also means we need to rely on members who were able to spot those original posts at the time, and then to rely on the accumulative community memory.

That means we need a degree of trust between members and sensible critical thinking to separate untrustworthy individuals and statements from trustworthy ones.

And here is where personal bias slips right in. Did you 'recall' some characteristic of CV-18 or Y-20 or 055 because a big shrimp said so, or because you wanted him to say so and you can no longer distinguish which was which? You wouldn't even have to be doing this on a conscious, intentional level. "I am right because this is what the big shrimps have been saying". Have they really now?

Again, I want to repeat I do not believe that the 001A or 002 designations are necessarily "official designations" at all. That is not my position, and my position is about the characteristics those designations are meant to represent.

As for J-20 and other projects (Y-20, 052D, 055, 001A that I also mentioned) -- I am talking about the characteristics rumoured for each of those projects, in the years prior to unveiling. These characteristics include the basic physical parameters, to when construction may have begun to when it may be first seen etc.

The above characteristics for a variety of different projects have all arisen through the same process of initial mere "internet rumours". How do you know that J-20 (J-XX back then), was based off insider sources and that 002 knowledge is not? Same question for Y-20 or 052D or 055 rumours or 001A rumours prior to their respective unveilings as well.

If as you admit people (you included) do not actually feel that these are official or even semi-official designations used internally by the PLAN, then you realize just as I do the qualitatively different nature of the Chinese carrier numbering system compared to rumors about the J-20, in which case I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. The ex-Varyag has been in China for 14 years. During this entire time no Chinese military source has ever made mention of this designation system, by referring to the Liaoning as "001". Or CV-17 as "001A", or CV-18 as "002". This is why I believed J-20 rumors far more than I believe these numbers to be legitimate internal PLAN designations. Note that use of the term "002" is NOT the same thing as saying all the other things about CV-18, such as conventional, CATOBAR, 80,000 tons (which incidentally sounds reasonable to me), which it seems to me you have been conflating. Denying the use of the term "002" is not the same as denying the commonly rumored characteristics of the 002, which is why I have been saying all along that you don't have to use these arbitrary made-up terms to talk intelligently and coherently about these carriers. Do I feel CV-18 will be conventional, with CATOBAR and 80,000 tons? Sounds like a reasonable guess as any to me. Do I feel I have to use the term "002" to go with all that? Not for a New York minute.

 

[Blitzo]

Rather the reverse is true. By calling CV-18 "002" you are trying to ascribe certain assumptions about the carrier that have the appearance of authority or legitimacy when we both know this is not the case. I reemphasize that using "002" over "CV-18" on the face of it provides you absolutely no additional information other than "different class from 001". What you include in addition to this is your personal speculation. Not including various implications in a designator does not in any way preclude you from actually talking about them or believing their veracity, it simply denies you the role of being the de facto truth holder, so to speak. That's the real power of the name; it allows you to subtly set the conditions for discussion in your favor, whether you are consciously doing this or not.

First of all, I want to say that I have no opinion as to the veracity of the 002 or 001A designation in official Chinese Navy use. I will be repeating that quite a few times in this reply, but I want to make that clear first of all.

As for using "002" -- I think it is a sensible designation to use because of the characteristics that have been ascribed to it via the years of consistent rumours from big shrimps. Even if it is not the official designation of the class, the fact is that this term is now in wide circulation by PLA watchers in English and Chinese, and anyone who's been following the Chinese carrier programme for a while now should know what the 002 and 001A designations both mean. So as a short hand or a stand-in, yes I do think these designations are viable and logical to use.

You can say that you don't want to use the 002 designation, and I have no problem with that, but I would also appreciate it in that case if you could not deride others for using that designation as well.

And here is where personal bias slips right in. Did you 'recall' some characteristic of CV-18 or Y-20 or 055 because a big shrimp said so, or because you wanted him to say so and you can no longer distinguish which was which? You wouldn't even have to be doing this on a conscious, intentional level. "I am right because this is what the big shrimps have been saying". Have they really now?

Fortunately, this forum is populated by a substantial number of quite experienced PLA watchers many of whom also read the Chinese boards, so if I've made an incorrect recall or memory of a big shrimp's statement then other people who may have been able to recall it correctly will be able dispute my claim.

That is part of the method for disseminating big shrimp rumours, and I think everyone's quite vigilant for fact checking, and also at the same time accepting that sometimes things may be lost in communication or be misinterpreted.

As for the 002 designation itself, yes it has been used explicitly before, here, by fzgfzy (the same fellow who in late 2014 and early 2015 predicted the 001A construction, as well as a variety of other naval predictions).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

back when it was posted the contents were translated on this forum
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-aircraft-carrier-programme-closed.t6479/page-407#post-360799

[Of course, since 2015 last year there have been a few developments on the 002 front (possibly regarding catapults), but this is to settle that yes, the 002 designation has been used explicitly before, with the characteristics that I've previously described.]

If as you admit people (you included) do not actually feel that these are official or even semi-official designations used internally by the PLAN, then you realize just as I do the qualitatively different nature of the Chinese carrier numbering system compared to rumors about the J-20, in which case I'm not even sure what you're arguing here.

Yes, I do not have any issue with whether the official name of "CV-18" is 002 or not.

The comparison between 002 and J-20 (and Y-20 and 052D, 055, 001A etc) is to demonstrate that the characteristics I've described for 002 (or CV-18, for you) arose through the same rumour channels and critical analysis of rumours that the characteristics arose for those other projects before they were "unveiled".

The ex-Varyag has been in China for 14 years. During this entire time no Chinese military source has ever made mention of this designation system, by referring to the Liaoning as "001". Or CV-17 as "001A", or CV-18 as "002". This is why I believed J-20 rumors far more than I believe these numbers to be legitimate internal PLAN designations. Note that use of the term "002" is NOT the same thing as saying all the other things about CV-18, such as conventional, CATOBAR, 80,000 tons (which incidentally sounds reasonable to me), which it seems to me you have been conflating. Denying the use of the term "002" is not the same as denying the commonly rumored characteristics of the 002, which is why I have been saying all along that you don't have to use these arbitrary made-up terms to talk intelligently and coherently about these carriers. Do I feel CV-18 will be conventional, with CATOBAR and 80,000 tons? Sounds like a reasonable guess as any to me. Do I feel I have to use the term "002" to go with all that? Not for a New York minute.

I don't care whether you want to use it or not, and again, I'll repeat that I have no particular belief about the official nature or lack thereof of the 002 or 001A designation. 002 and 001A might just be stand-in designations used by the big shrimps, who knows. I seriously do not care. To me, the official nature or lack thereof of those designations is not of interest, and it's never been of my interest.


My only interest in this discussion surrounding the designations is their usefulness in encapsulating the characteristics that have been ascribed to them over the years via rumours.

So if you feel disinclined to call the second domestic carrier/third overall carrier "002" and want to call it "CV-18" instead, but if you are willing to accept that its characteristics will likely be or have the potential to be what has been described for "002" by the various big shrimps over the years then I have no issue on this count.


And of course you don't have to use the designation "002" or "001A" --- but I would also appreciate it if you allowed the rest of us to use those designations without you mocking those terms please.

 

[Iron Man]

First of all, I want to say that I have no opinion as to the veracity of the 002 or 001A designation in official Chinese Navy use. I will be repeating that quite a few times in this reply, but I want to make that clear first of all.

As for using "002" -- I think it is a sensible designation to use because of the characteristics that have been ascribed to it via the years of consistent rumours from big shrimps. Even if it is not the official designation of the class, the fact is that this term is now in wide circulation by PLA watchers in English and Chinese, and anyone who's been following the Chinese carrier programme for a while now should know what the 002 and 001A designations both mean. So as a short hand or a stand-in, yes I do think these designations are viable and logical to use.

You can say that you don't want to use the 002 designation, and I have no problem with that, but I would also appreciate it in that case if you could not deride others for using that designation as well.

Where have I derided others for using these designations? I said in post #170 that the further out these designations go, the more laughable they become. Did you somehow view that as a personal attack against you? If so, you should grow a thicker skin, because it wasn't meant as an attack against individuals, but rather the anything-goes attitude that this arbitrary carrier designation system has now spawned. And you are now seeing the fruits of this arbitrariness, and I even see you trying to put out the fires that others are starting, but to no avail, because your preferences for naming carriers are no more authoritative than theirs. In this very thread and in other threads you have people propagating their own designations as an expression of their personal vision for future Chinese carriers. "001B", "002A", "003", and I'm sure more are coming. That is why it has been important to me to repeatedly point out that "001", "001A", and "002" are not in fact representative of anything official or even semi-official, a point which you acknowledge.

Fortunately, this forum is populated by a substantial number of quite experienced PLA watchers many of whom also read the Chinese boards, so if I've made an incorrect recall or memory of a big shrimp's statement then other people who may have been able to recall it correctly will be able dispute my claim.

That is part of the method for disseminating big shrimp rumours, and I think everyone's quite vigilant for fact checking, and also at the same time accepting that sometimes things may be lost in communication or be misinterpreted.

As for the 002 designation itself, yes it has been used explicitly before, here, by fzgfzy (the same fellow who in late 2014 and early 2015 predicted the 001A construction, as well as a variety of other naval predictions).

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

back when it was posted the contents were translated on this forum
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-aircraft-carrier-programme-closed.t6479/page-407#post-360799

[Of course, since 2015 last year there have been a few developments on the 002 front (possibly regarding catapults), but this is to settle that yes, the 002 designation has been used explicitly before, with the characteristics that I've previously described.]

Again, you are taking something personally which I did not ascribe to you personally, though I admit using the word "you" can be confusing. Blame the Brits, it's not my fault "you" is both personal and general.

Regarding statements by big shrimp, I don't really care that they use these terms. In fact the terms have been around for so long why wouldn't they have used them by now? Those links you posted were from just last year. Even I used them until I started seeing people make up their designations in the same 'flavor' as the original designations and things started getting even more arbitrary and confusing than before. The only reason I might care is if you can link a direct claim by one of them to the effect that the PLAN uses these terms internally. Otherwise I couldn't care less that fzgfzy used the term "002".

My only interest in this discussion surrounding the designations is their usefulness in encapsulating the characteristics that have been ascribed to them over the years via rumours.

So if you feel disinclined to call the second domestic carrier/third overall carrier "002" and want to call it "CV-18" instead, but if you are willing to accept that its characteristics will likely be or have the potential to be what has been described for "002" by the various big shrimps over the years then I have no issue on this count.

But like I have said, they are in fact NOT useful in "encapsulating" the characteristics that have been ascribed to them. There is literally nothing more that can be gleaned from "002" other than that it is allegedly a different class than "001". As I have pointed out before, you could take "002" and substitute it with "CV-18" and STILL ascribe every characteristic to CV-18 that you ascribed to 002. In fact I have also pointed out before that a somewhat larger CATOBAR carrier may not actually be viewed by the PLAN as a different class especially if it was further developed off of the original Liaoning design, and I pointed out several examples of the PLAN keeping the same class designations for ships and subs that are otherwise almost completely different designs. So 002 may in fact be entirely misleading.

 

[Blitzo]

Where have I derided others for using these designations? I said in post #170 that the further out these designations go, the more laughable they become. Did you somehow view that as a personal attack against you?

In #170 you said the designations that Forbin used were "fanboi".
Forbin used those designations.
So, I don't think it's a stretch for me to say that you're directly or indirectly accusing Forbin of being a fanboy.

And no, of course I didn't view that as a personal attack against me, but rather I viewed it as a mocking of anyone who uses the 00X designations in general.
If that isn't what you meant or what you feel, then my apology for the misinterpretation.

If so, you should grow a thicker skin, because it wasn't meant as an attack against individuals, but rather the anything-goes attitude that this arbitrary carrier designation system has now spawned. And you are now seeing the fruits of this arbitrariness, and I even see you trying to put out the fires that others are starting, but to no avail, because your preferences for naming carriers are no more authoritative than theirs. In this very thread and in other threads you have people propagating their own designations as an expression of their personal vision for future Chinese carriers. "001B", "002A", "003", and I'm sure more are coming.

Okay, if you wren't using it to attack others then that's great. Then can you also please stop attacking, mocking or deriding the use of the 00X designation in general? Like, I get it, you think the 00X designation system is stupid, but everyone else is going to keep using it... and you're free to bring it up whenever you want to in future if it's an issue you feel passionate about of course, but it's going to get tired real quickly.

As for people who are supposedly espousing their own personal vision of future Chinese carriers with various random 00X designations -- if it is such an issue, then just shut them down by saying those designations are not in circulation by anyone and not used by big shrimps at all at this stage, and that should be enough to shut them up.

Instead, seeing that as a problem and trying to solve it by arguing against the entire use of the 001, 001A and 002 designations that have been in use for something like the last half decade among not only English language Chinese military forums, but also the original Chinese military forums and the big shrimps which inhabit it, (and even used by some well regarded defence and media publications), is an insurmountable task and comes across as needlessly pedantic if not a little bit arrogant.

That is why it has been important to me to repeatedly point out that "001", "001A", and "002" are not in fact representative of anything official or even semi-official, a point which you acknowledge.

Literally no one is arguing that the 001, 001A and 002 designations are official or even semi-official. I did not argue that, weig2000 did not argue that, and even intrepid did not argue that.

Let me repeat: no one is arguing that the 001, 001A and 002 designations or the 00X designations are official or even semi-official.

HOWEVER -- that does not change the usefulness of the 001, 001A and 002 designations (even if it was just some big shrimp who pulled it out of their backside), because they've been in use so long with certain characteristics consistently associated with them that they've just become accepted by the PLA watching communities of multiple languages.

Again, you are taking something personally which I did not ascribe to you personally, though I admit using the word "you" can be confusing. Blame the Brits, it's not my fault "you" is both personal and general.

Okay, understandable, but my point about the community being able to pick up on dubious claims that people attribute to big shrimps and critically inquire about them as a way of fact checking still rings true.

Regarding statements by big shrimp, I don't really care that they use these terms. In fact the terms have been around for so long why wouldn't they have used them by now? Those links you posted were from just last year. Even I used them until I started seeing people make up their designations in the same 'flavor' as the original designations and things started getting even more arbitrary and confusing than before. The only reason I might care is if you can link a direct claim by one of them to the effect that the PLAN uses these terms internally. Otherwise I couldn't care less that fzgfzy used the term "002".

Err I linked that post to demonstrate that certain key characteristics have been associated to the 002 designation by big shrimps (fzgfzy in this case). If that means nothing to you, then okay.

And again, no one is claiming that the 002 designation is an official designation being used by the Chinese Navy -- I seriously don't know why you are so hung up on this point. No one else I can see is seriously arguing that the 002 designation is being used by the Chinese Navy, and I'm not sure why you're so obsessed about this.

But like I have said, they are in fact NOT useful in "encapsulating" the characteristics that have been ascribed to them. There is literally nothing more that can be gleaned from "002" other than that it is allegedly a different class than "001".

The characteristics that are ascirbed or encapsulated by the 002 designation are characteristics that have been described by the big shrimps.
That is why the designation of 002 is useful for us, because when someone says "002" most people should immediately know what the general characteristics of the ship may be like.

Again, whether 002 is an official Chinese Navy designation or not is irrelevant -- for the sake of argument let's just say that it's completely unofficial and just made up by a big shrimp as their own personal short hand -- that doesn't change the fact that everyone is already using the 002 designation, and various consistent characteristics have already been ascribed to that designation via rumours from big shrimps, for years now.

As I have pointed out before, you could take "002" and substitute it with "CV-18" and STILL ascribe every characteristic to CV-18 that you ascribed to 002. In fact I have also pointed out before that a somewhat larger CATOBAR carrier may not actually be viewed by the PLAN as a different class especially if it was further developed off of the original Liaoning design, and I pointed out several examples of the PLAN keeping the same class designations for ships and subs that are otherwise almost completely different designs. So 002 may in fact be entirely misleading.

Look, we can argue about the logic of whether it's sensible or not to use 002 or not, and whether it's sensible to only use CV-18 instead of an 00X designation, this isn't very important.

You can choose not to use 00X designations and only use CV-XX designations, which I have no problem with.

But as I said above, I would also appreciate it if you do not deride the use of 00X designations as well. Everyone else is going to continue using the 00X designation, and your criticism of it isn't going to change anything.

 

[Iron Man]

In #170 you said the designations that Forbin used were "fanboi".
Forbin used those designations.
So, I don't think it's a stretch for me to say that you're directly or indirectly accusing Forbin of being a fanboy.

And no, of course I didn't view that as a personal attack against me, but rather I viewed it as a mocking of anyone who uses the 00X designations in general.
If that isn't what you meant or what you feel, then my apology for the misinterpretation.

We both know Forbin is no fanboi, but this in no way lessens my criticism of this system as being totally speculative and not grounded in reality, especially the designators for the later carriers. This is the message I was trying to get across.

Instead, seeing that as a problem and trying to solve it by arguing against the entire use of the 001, 001A and 002 designations that have been in use for something like the last half decade among not only English language Chinese military forums, but also the original Chinese military forums and the big shrimps which inhabit it, (and even used by some well regarded defence and media publications), is an insurmountable task and comes across as needlessly pedantic if not a little bit arrogant.

I know full well it is an unsurmountable task to get multiple countries' worth of netizens to change their use of terms especially if they have been engrained for many years. OTOH this has never been my goal, nor is the fact that changing this terminology is not a realistic goal in any way a reason to not talk about it or criticize it. But in actuality I have already said my piece long ago and have just been rehashing the same things I've said before in this thread; I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be having this conversation with you if weig2000 hadn't made a backhanded comment about me earlier and I felt I had to clarify some misconceptions about his conclusions regarding my previous statements on SDF.

The characteristics that are ascirbed or encapsulated by the 002 designation are characteristics that have been described by the big shrimps.
That is why the designation of 002 is useful for us, because when someone says "002" most people should immediately know what the general characteristics of the ship may be like.

Yes, I understand this part fully. It does nothing to change the limitations of this scheme when applied to speculation about future carriers, as we have been seeing recently.

 

[Blitzo]

We both know Forbin is no fanboi, but this in no way lessens my criticism of this system as being totally speculative and not grounded in reality, especially the designators for the later carriers. This is the message I was trying to get across.

I agree that trying to use 00X designations to project future carriers beyond the first 002/CV-18 is dubious at best, so if you want to criticize the use of designations beyond 002 as being fanboyish then I would consider that to be a slightly more reasonable argument.

But I also personally think it isn't that much of an issue so long as everyone knows that there has been no credible rumours from big shrimps about what the carrier programme will clearly look like beyond the first 002/CV-18.

I know full well it is an unsurmountable task to get multiple countries' worth of netizens to change their use of terms especially if they have been engrained for many years. OTOH this has never been my goal, nor is the fact that changing this terminology is not a realistic goal in any way a reason to not talk about it or criticize it. But in actuality I have already said my piece long ago and have just been rehashing the same things I've said before in this thread; I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even be having this conversation with you if weig2000 hadn't made a backhanded comment about me earlier and I felt I had to clarify some misconceptions about his conclusions regarding my previous statements on SDF.

Okay, fair enough -- but I feel like weig2000 may not have felt to have need to make a backhanded comment if you hadn't essentially mocked the use of 00X designations being "fanboi" in #170.
I think it rubbed him the wrong way because the sheer magnitude of so easily mocking the designation system that is being used by so many, for so long, comes across as abrasive and grandiose, and I sort of got that feeling as well (though I know you probably did not mean to convey it consciously).

Yes, I understand this part fully. It does nothing to change the limitations of this scheme when applied to speculation about future carriers, as we have been seeing recently.

Yes, well as I said above, I think using the 00X designation to project the carrier programme beyond the first 002/CV-18 is dubious, and that if anyone tries to do so it must be made clear that those designations (whether it's 002A or 003 or whatever) are not ones which are in circulation yet/not yet used by big shrimps to describe anything.

So long as that is made clear, then I see no problem with speculating what future carriers may look like, and to play around with designations beyond 002.

 

[FORBIN]

We both know Forbin is no fanboi.

Glad to hear that

 

[Jeff Head]

Regarding SD's use of unofficial designations.

Guys, this is being beaten to death and is completely sidetracking the thread.

The reasons for 001, 001A, 002, 003, etc. on this board have been explained, and explained well.

If you do not like or agree with them...don't use them.

Call them whatever you wish.

But ENOUGH of the endless debate about whether it is official (it is not) or warranted (here on SD the moderators have decided it is), or something we should or should not be doing.

We are going to continue to use it, and as we know more, the class names and the pennant numbers will be substituted for these unofficial designations.

More endless, and I might add at this point...useless...debate about it will be removed.

DO NOT RESPOND TO THIS MODERATION