PLA Air Force news, pics and videos

Jingle Bells said:

Yes to all what you are saying. And this is NOT inconsistent to what my original post was:


Although, I see what the conflict is:
"the words of the like of Shilao" is understood by you to mean "any words of the like of Shilao".
Okey, I guess I was vague here. What I meant was "those words by the like of Shilao", specifically referring to what he said in the video.

Click to expand...

Actually, it is inconsistent to your original post.
You wrote
"Well, you can't convince @Bltizo with the words of the like of Shilao, just like you can't convince @asif iqbal without an actual video of heavy vehicle loaded on type 726 coming in/out of a 071/076. For them, seeing is believing."

Based on the last few posts, I believe you should have written:
"Shilao's words in general are always important to pay attention to. But no PLA watcher (including myself, yourself, and all of us interested in this topic) should be convinced as to any information about the extent, type and capabilities of PLA A2G, that was provided by these specific words from Shilao."

That is to say:
1. Shilao's words in general are of course important and we all pay attention to it, but also...
2. ... these specific statements Shilao gave about PLA A2G doesn't add anything to the conversation about PLA fixed wing precision strike that we were having.

Agreed?

Bltizo said:

That is to say:
1. Shilao's words in general are of course important and we all pay attention to it, but also...
2. ... these specific statements Shilao gave about PLA A2G doesn't add anything to the conversation about PLA fixed wing precision strike that we were having.

Click to expand...

This part is correct, I agree with.

However, I don't necessarily need to change my words to exactly what you have written at all.

I just need to change it to:
"Well, you can't convince @Bltizo with these words of the like of Shilao in the video, just like you can't convince @asif iqbal without an actual video of heavy vehicle loaded on type 726 coming in/out of a 071/076. For them, seeing is believing."

Because although "Shilao's words in general are of course important...", what he said in the video is vague and with very little "useful" details. And just like how @asif iqbal was very particular and insistent upon seeing the exact footage of fully loaded type 726 going in/out of 071/076 on open water, by his logic, all other videos without showing such details simply "(do not) add anything to the conversation about PLA.." amphibious warfare capabilities, at the time.

Jingle Bells said:

This part is correct, I agree with.

However, I don't necessarily need to change my words to exactly what you have written at all.

I just need to change it to:
"Well, you can't convince @Bltizo with these words of the like of Shilao in the video, just like you can't convince @asif iqbal without an actual video of heavy vehicle loaded on type 726 coming in/out of a 071/076. For them, seeing is believing."

Because although "Shilao's words in general are of course important...", what he said in the video is vague and with very little "useful" details. And just like how @asif iqbal was very particular and insistent upon seeing the exact footage of fully loaded type 726 going in/out of 071/076 on open water, by his logic, all other videos without showing such details simply "(do not) add anything to the conversation about PLA.." amphibious warfare capabilities, at the time.

Click to expand...

The key issue is that in your original post, and also still here, you do not specify what it is "I" want to be "convinced" of.
And you also specify it as if it is only "me" that has this expectation, when in reality, all of us as PLA watchers should have this expectation.

And your comparison with Asif is poor to begin with because how do you even compare these two expectations and "evidence" -- for example if Shilao went and said "726 can carry an MBT" but we don't have videos or images of it, that should be adequate evidence for him.

I.e.:
"There is nothing from these words from Shilao in this video, that that adds any new information to the discussion and knowledge base that the PLA watching community has already had, about PLA A2G strike capabilities".

===

The reason I am harping on this so much, is because you're making it sound like the information provided by Shilao is something that only I believe is not useful -- instead, it is something that we should all believe as not useful and not adding anything new to the knowledge base that we've already possessed.

Otherwise, if the overall thrust of "PLA has some A2G capabilities they haven't shown us" is considered as useful, then I can only say that bodes poorly for the community's understanding of the basic tenets of PLA watching.

Bltizo said:

I.e.:
"There is nothing from these words from Shilao in this video, that that adds any new information to the discussion and knowledge base that the PLA watching community has already had, about PLA A2G strike capabilities".

Click to expand...

This depends on what you mean by "PLA watching community". If this means everyone in this forum that is as informed as you are and has been following the conversation as close as you have, then you are right. However, if this means everyone who participates in the discussion as well people who are interested in participating in "PLA watching", then I would say NO.

"Knowledge base of the PLA watching community" itself is vague. Unless you can provide a defined collection of knowledge, post it on this forum, and maintain it. Pardon me for nit-picking, but a lot of disagreements come from the vagueness of a so-called common knowledge base. There is no such thing as a precise "common knowledge base of PLA watching" with well defined boundaries and clearly stated contents.

Bltizo said:

The reason I am harping on this so much, is because you're making it sound like the information provided by Shilao is something that only I believe is not useful -- instead, it is something that we should all believe as not useful and not adding anything new to the knowledge base that we've already possessed.

Click to expand...

Yes, I did refer specifically to you. But I am doing this precisely because I want to be accurate and not generalizing. I am simply pointing out the fact that you are stating "you're not convinced". I did NOT in anyway insist that you are wrong, at all.

As for whether "we should all believe as not useful", I would say that right now, I personally agree with you and stand with you. As for who this "we" should include precisely, I would say that this is something I am not sure about. This is why I rather use the less generalizing way of stating something pointed to you personally, instead of using a form of speech that is more generalizing (objective). Who are you talking about when you say "we"? Who would qualify as what you refer to as "PLA watching Community" (undefined) which knows and understands and agree with all the contents of this "common knowledge base of PLA Watching" (again, undefined).

Well, unless you give me the exact definition of who this "community" should include and the exact content of this "common knowledge base", I hold my previous position.

Bltizo said:

Otherwise, if the overall thrust of "PLA has some A2G capabilities they haven't shown us" is considered as useful, then I can only say that bodes poorly for the community's understanding of the basic tenets of PLA watching.

Click to expand...

Again, please clearly define exactly who is included in this "community". Am I included? is everyone on this forum included?

Don't get me wrong, I have no intention to object to your ideas. I take them as your ideas and your view points. I, myself, agree with you idea. But I refuse to add myself to this "group" you assumed to exist (this PLA watching community that you have somehow predefined and seems to represent), without even giving me the clear definition of this group, or what exactly this "knowledge base" contains.

I respect you, I like your ideas, I agree with your point.

Jingle Bells said:

This depends on what you mean by "PLA watching community". If this means everyone in this forum that is as informed as you are and has been following the conversation as close as you have, then you are right. However, if this means everyone who participates in the discussion as well people who are interested in participating in "PLA watching", then I would say NO.

"Knowledge base of the PLA watching community" itself is vague. Unless you can provide a defined collection of knowledge, post it on this forum, and maintain it. Pardon me for nit-picking, but a lot of disagreements come from the vagueness of a so-called common knowledge base. There is no such thing as a precise "common knowledge base of PLA watching" with well defined boundaries and clearly stated contents.
Yes, I did refer specifically to you. But I am doing this precisely because I want to be accurate and not generalizing. I am simply pointing out the fact that you are stating "you're not convinced". I did NOT in anyway insist that you are wrong, at all.

As for whether "we should all believe as not useful", I would say that right now, I personally agree with you and stand with you. As for who this "we" should include precisely, I would say that this is something I am not sure about. This is why I rather use the less generalizing way of stating something pointed to you personally, instead of using a form of speech that is more generalizing (objective). Who are you talking about when you say "we"? Who would qualify as what you refer to as "PLA watching Community" (undefined) which knows and understands and agree with all the contents of this "common knowledge base of PLA Watching" (again, undefined).

Well, unless you give me the exact definition of who this "community" should include and the exact content of this "common knowledge base", I hold my previous position.


Again, please clearly define exactly who is included in this "community". Am I included? is everyone on this forum included?

Don't get me wrong, I have no intention to object to your ideas. I take them as your ideas and your view points. I, myself, agree with you idea. But I refuse to add myself to this "group" you assumed to exist (this PLA watching community that you have somehow predefined and seems to represent), without even giving me the clear definition of this group, or what exactly this "knowledge base" contains.

I respect you, I like your ideas, I agree with your point.

Click to expand...

I think we can set some reasonable expectations for what constitutes a baseline of knowledge for PLA watchers -- and the idea that "PLA does not show us everything" is one of the basest, most simplistic foundations of PLA watching.

If you agree with my position, then why do you belabour this point or seek to specify what a "PLA watcher" is in this community?

By specifying that position ("PLA does not show us everything") is "mine" specifically, you are portraying it as if it is some sort of unique, or exceptional stance, whereas in reality it should be something that does not even require an explicit statement to acknowledge, such as "China has nuclear weapons" or "J-10 is a product of CAC" or "CV-16's name is Liaoning" or "the Type 191 service rifle exists".



Saying "you don't seem to find that statement useful" should instead be "we shouldn't find that statement useful" --- and if someone who found the statement of "PLA doesn't show us all of their A2G capabilities" to be useful, that is fine, because they would have now learned to realize that the PLA doesn't ever show us all of their capabilities for every domain there is, and will know that the statement is elementary and pedestrian.

Bltizo said:

I am aware of that weapon, and it is indeed 100kg weight class, and it is the weapon that optionsss is referring to in this thread:

PLA Air Force news, pics and videos

This would be ideal for exports. J-10 with targeting pods and radar system should be sufficient for delivering A2G weaponry. You are thinking A2A for exports? That would work, too. I was actually thinking A2G. With this kind of adaptors, J10 would be more capable in A2G missions. Even with two...

www.sinodefenceforum.com

However that is the only picture we have of it, and it definitely is not 250kg class.

The 100kg bomb is the one at the top of this brochure.

Click to expand...

How's the CEP performance of these munitions in relation to Western counterparts?

ZeEa5KPul said:

How's the CEP performance of these munitions in relation to Western counterparts?

Click to expand...

For laser guided bombs, it's basically in the same ballpark, it's fine.

Bltizo said:

I think we can set some reasonable expectations for what constitutes a baseline of knowledge for PLA watchers -- and the idea that "PLA does not show us everything" is one of the basest, most simplistic foundations of PLA watching.

Click to expand...

Agree.

Bltizo said:

If you agree with my position, then why do you belabour this point or seek to specify what a "PLA watcher" is in this community?

Click to expand...

Because if you want me to say something like "there is nothing from these words from Shilao in this video, that that adds any new information to the discussion and knowledge base that the PLA watching community has already had, about PLA A2G strike capabilities", I must first know what who the "PLA watching community" actually include, and what exact this "knowledge base" contains. If you can tell me what they are, I will be willing to take a look at them and see if I need to change my words.

Bltizo said:

By specifying that position ("PLA does not show us everything") is "mine" specifically, you are portraying it as if it is some sort of unique, or exceptional stance, whereas in reality it should be something that does not even require an explicit statement to acknowledge, such as "China has nuclear weapons" or "J-10 is a product of CAC" or "CV-16's name is Liaoning" or "the Type 191 service rifle exists".

Click to expand...

I am sorry you feel this way, but I had no intention to imply such with my words. I only pointed out that what you said, I did not say anything about what other people thinks on this matter.

Just like if I say: "@BItizo said the sky is blue", it does NOT mean that you are the only person who said that. I just said exact what I said, no implication for what other people thinks.

However, on the matter of this "PLA Watching Community" you have referred to, I have no idea who exactly is included in this community, so I can not agree any statement that claims to represent some kind of consensus on a particular idea. I just know that you said it, and I agree with your idea. I don't know and thus will not try to say that somehow everyone in this "community" you spoke of, has a consensus on this idea the both us agree with. That's it.

You can first set up a wiki type of web page detailing the knowledges and name it "PLA watching community knowledge base". And then set up a survey on this particular matter, and have people on this forum participate. And once that's over, you can say to me that the "community" you are referring to consist precisely of these people (which agree with the idea that the two of us agree on, and have read through and agree with everything in the "PLA Watching Community Knowledge Base"). And then, I will be confident enough to say those words: "there is nothing from these words from Shilao in this video, that that adds any new information to the discussion and knowledge base that the PLA watching community has already had, about PLA A2G strike capabilities"

Bltizo said:

Saying "you don't seem to find that statement useful" should instead be "we shouldn't find that statement useful" --- and if someone who found the statement of "PLA doesn't show us all of their A2G capabilities" to be useful, that is fine, because they would have now learned to realize that the PLA doesn't ever show us all of their capabilities for every domain there is, and will know that the statement is elementary and pedestrian.

Click to expand...

This is a good start, at least you have started to defined in part what you think would count as contents of this "Common Knowledge Base" of the "PLA Watching Community".
Correct me if I am wrong, I suppose you meant to say that what you define as someone qualified to be a member of "PLA Watching Community" is someone who knows, understands and agree with this "Common Knowledge Base"( of the "PLA Watching Community").

Bltizo said:

For laser guided bombs, it's basically in the same ballpark, it's fine.

Click to expand...

I think I am having way too much fun playing around with you. I feel guilty wasting your time and your mental energy.
I will stop now. Sorry about that, and please understand that I do appreciate your knowledge and ideas on this forum!!
Thanks!

Jingle Bells said:

Agree.

Because if you want me to say something like "there is nothing from these words from Shilao in this video, that that adds any new information to the discussion and knowledge base that the PLA watching community has already had, about PLA A2G strike capabilities", I must first know what who the "PLA watching community" actually include, and what exact this "knowledge base" contains. If you can tell me what they are, I will be willing to take a look at them and see if I need to change my words.


I am sorry you feel this way, but I had no intention to imply such with my words. I only pointed out that what you said, I did not say anything about what other people thinks on this matter.

Just like if I say: "@BItizo said the sky is blue", it does NOT mean that you are the only person who said that. I just said exact what I said, no implication for what other people thinks.

However, on the matter of this "PLA Watching Community" you have referred to, I have no idea who exactly is included in this community, so I can not agree any statement that claims to represent some kind of consensus on a particular idea. I just know that you said it, and I agree with your idea. I don't know and thus will not try to say that somehow everyone in this "community" you spoke of, has a consensus on this idea the both us agree with. That's it.

You can first set up a wiki type of web page detailing the knowledges and name it "PLA watching community knowledge base". And then set up a survey on this particular matter, and have people on this forum participate. And once that's over, you can say to me that the "community" you are referring to consist precisely of these people (which agree with the idea that the two of us agree on, and have read through and agree with everything in the "PLA Watching Community Knowledge Base"). And then, I will be confident enough to say those words: "there is nothing from these words from Shilao in this video, that that adds any new information to the discussion and knowledge base that the PLA watching community has already had, about PLA A2G strike capabilities"


This is a good start, at least you have started to defined in part what you think would count as contents of this "Common Knowledge Base" of the "PLA Watching Community".
Correct me if I am wrong, I suppose you meant to say that what you define as someone qualified to be a member of "PLA Watching Community" is someone who knows, understands and agree with this "Common Knowledge Base"( of the "PLA Watching Community").

Click to expand...

So, by extension you are saying that you believe "the PLA watching community at large should be expected to know that the PLA does not reveal all of its capabilities as part of a basic set of foundational knowledge" is an unreasonable position to take.

Fine.