PLAN 2nd & 3rd Aircraft Carrier wager & planning

Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
PanAsian said:
That's good if it was just an attitude miscommunication regarding your last post.

You do understand me correctly regarding fair being an equal information and evidence disadvantage.

However it is your opinion that my position was based overwhelmingly on luck and you have been arguing that luck has no part in the wager.

I have shown that my position is based on evidence and reasoning, albeit different than yours, and I have been arguing that some luck, or unknown, apparently more than you are willing to acknowledge, is inherent to any wager otherwise there is no point or it wouldn't be a fair one.
Click to expand...

Okay I see. I was under the impression that over the previous few posts you were arguing that your position was based on luck, I have no problem with the fact that your position is due to evidence and reasoning -- if anything that is what I believed this wager was meant to be like in the first place.



Keep in mind that two carriers in the water by 2025 was not the only issue even if that was what you wanted to focus on but also China's prioritization of expanding their carrier fleet, nor was this just a wager between you and me. As I have said many times before I have no intention of changing the original wager.

That said, what I think would have been fairer terms:
- Assuming everyone's estimates in 2015 were no different from those stated just a few posts back for how long it takes China to put a new carrier in the water.
- These estimates account for any and all unknowns such as China's prioritization of their carrier program, Liaoning-based or new design, war or no war, however the Chinese economy performs, etc.
- The average estimate would be a period of 8 years, counting back from June 30th 2025 for the carrier to be in the water, would translate into a 3rd Chinese carrier beginning construction by June 30th 2017.
Click to expand...

I'll respond to those three points as 1, 2 and 3. And yes, it's all hypothetical.

1: I think it would be difficult for people to agree on how long such a length would be.
2: back when this wager was first settled upon, I actually suggested this would be something to consider -- especially the possibility of war, and the state of the Chinese economy, https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-2nd-3rd-aircraft-carrier-wager-planning.t7361/#post-346146 -- but you argued that would be non-viable. I'm not sure if you mean to account for the other unknowns in the the same as what I suggested back then.
3: this particular point I would disagree on, because the 8 years period was a number for how long it would take such a ship to go from beginning visible construction, to entering service. I'd interpreted the statement of a ship being "in the water" to equate to either having been launched and at a relatively advanced stage of fitting out, and/or possibly starting sea trials, and given such a statement I think having the date be in 2020 is quite sensible, as that would be the latest possible year for a carrier to be (or not be) under construction and be in the water by 2025, thus fulfilling or not fulfilling the original question of whether there would be more than two carriers in the water by 2025 or not.
 
P

PanAsian

Major
Bltizo said:
Okay I see. I was under the impression that over the previous few posts you were arguing that your position was based on luck, I have no problem with the fact that your position is due to evidence and reasoning -- if anything that is what I believed this wager was meant to be like in the first place.

I'll respond to those three points as 1, 2 and 3. And yes, it's all hypothetical.

1: I think it would be difficult for people to agree on how long such a length would be.
2: back when this wager was first settled upon, I actually suggested this would be something to consider -- especially the possibility of war, and the state of the Chinese economy, https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-2nd-3rd-aircraft-carrier-wager-planning.t7361/#post-346146 -- but you argued that would be non-viable. I'm not sure if you mean to account for the other unknowns in the the same as what I suggested back then.
3: this particular point I would disagree on, because the 8 years period was a number for how long it would take such a ship to go from beginning visible construction, to entering service. I'd interpreted the statement of a ship being "in the water" to equate to either having been launched and at a relatively advanced stage of fitting out, and/or possibly starting sea trials, and given such a statement I think having the date be in 2020 is quite sensible, as that would be the latest possible year for a carrier to be (or not be) under construction and be in the water by 2025, thus fulfilling or not fulfilling the original question of whether there would be more than two carriers in the water by 2025 or not.
Click to expand...

1. That's why it is an issue of negotiating the wager conditions.
2. You were requesting caveats while I insisted on no caveats, all wager positions are all things considered. I simply repeated my position in the previous post.
3. Contrary to your persistent mischaracterization the original question is whether the carrier program is high priority or not, not having 3 carriers in the water by 2025 is merely a reflection of low priority. Given that, one day sooner than low priority reflects middling priority, only a significant amount of time sooner than that would reflect high priority. Therefore not only is 2020 skewed towards the shortest estimated construction time estimate for any potential Chinese carrier, see 1., it is also not a reflection of the carrier program being high priority.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
PanAsian said:
1. That's why it is an issue of negotiating the wager conditions.
2. You were requesting caveats while I insisted on no caveats, all wager positions are all things considered. I simply repeated my position in the previous post.
3. Contrary to your persistent mischaracterization the original question is whether the carrier program is high priority or not, not having 3 carriers in the water by 2025 is merely a reflection of low priority. Given that, one day sooner than low priority reflects middling priority, only a significant amount of time sooner than that would reflect high priority. Therefore not only is 2020 skewed towards the shortest estimated construction time estimate for any potential Chinese carrier, see 1., it is also not a reflection of the carrier program being high priority.
Click to expand...

1: okay

2: I thought in your last post you wanted to "account for any and all unknowns such as China's prioritization of their carrier program, Liaoning-based or new design, war or no war, however the Chinese economy performs, etc."? How is that different to my caveats?

3: Okay, I think I finally understand what you mean.
Going back to the source of the wager, from what I recall was that you argued the carrier programme would be of "low priority" and that the positions that everyone else took was that the priority was "higher than your definition of low priority". That is to say, I don't think everyone else was saying that the carrier programme would be "high priority," but rather that it would merely be "higher priority" than what you believed... in fact looking back at it, I don't think anyone else explicitly argued that the carrier programme would be of an inherent "high priority" but that all the priority was described in relation to your description of it being of "low priority"
Furthermore, you were the first to describe your position of "low priority" in quantitative, measurable fashion -- by saying that they would not have more than two carriers in the water by 2025, which was the line which delineated "low priority" vs "higher than low priority"
Therefore, if we had to describe the wager as I understood it in quantitative terms, it was never about saying "how high priority is the Chinese carrier programme," but rather "is the priority of the Chinese carrier programme greater or lesser than the low priority benchmark which you described"?
 
P

PanAsian

Major
Bltizo said:
1: okay

2: I thought in your last post you wanted to "account for any and all unknowns such as China's prioritization of their carrier program, Liaoning-based or new design, war or no war, however the Chinese economy performs, etc."? How is that different to my caveats?

3: Okay, I think I finally understand what you mean.
Going back to the source of the wager, from what I recall was that you argued the carrier programme would be of "low priority" and that the positions that everyone else took was that the priority was "higher than your definition of low priority". That is to say, I don't think everyone else was saying that the carrier programme would be "high priority," but rather that it would merely be "higher priority" than what you believed... in fact looking back at it, I don't think anyone else explicitly argued that the carrier programme would be of an inherent "high priority" but that all the priority was described in relation to your description of it being of "low priority"
Furthermore, you were the first to describe your position of "low priority" in quantitative, measurable fashion -- by saying that they would not have more than two carriers in the water by 2025, which was the line which delineated "low priority" vs "higher than low priority"
Therefore, if we had to describe the wager as I understood it in quantitative terms, it was never about saying "how high priority is the Chinese carrier programme," but rather "is the priority of the Chinese carrier programme greater or lesser than the low priority benchmark which you described"?
Click to expand...

2. Slight wording but key meaning difference, I am saying that the wager positions need to be "any and all unknowns already accounted for" as in "all things considered" as in no caveats.

3. Yes, that is the point I am making and why it is an unfair wager setup. Thereby obviously I disagree with you as to what the wager is about.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Henry K on East Pendulumn has a decent article about China's potential 002 conventional CATOBAR carrier.

Here is the URL in Google Translate to English:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


If he is right, we should see some evidence of 002 in the next couple of years. He believes China will build two of the conventional CATOBAR 002 carriers.

PLAN-002.jpg
 
Last edited:
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
New and noteworthy:

Professor Jin Yinan (who is director of the strategic research institute at the PLA's National Defence University) at this conference said construction of China's third aircraft carrier began in March 2015 at JNCX!! 3:57 of the video, and it would be "flat deck, catapult take off". Consistent with known rumours of course.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I assume that means steel cutting beginning in March 2015. If true (and I do believe it most likely is, and corresponds with previous/current rumours), I think we will probably see modules of 002 start to appear at JNCX next year at earliest.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
New and noteworthy:

Professor Jin Yinan (who is director of the strategic research institute at the PLA's National Defence University) at this conference said construction of China's third aircraft carrier began in March 2015 at JNCX!! 3:57 of the video, and it would be "flat deck, catapult take off". Consistent with known rumours of course.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I assume that means steel cutting beginning in March 2015. If true (and I do believe it most likely is, and corresponds with previous/current rumours), I think we will probably see modules of 002 start to appear at JNCX next year at earliest.
Click to expand...
Great news. This means they could launch her, their first CATOBAR carier, in the 2020 time frame!

Interesting times for sure!

I look forward to seeing her take shape.

I wonder if there is a possibility that they start and build a 2nd offset by 4-6 months? That would be something, but probably too provocative.

We shall see.
 
Jeff Head

Jeff Head

General
Registered Member
Bltizo said:
New and noteworthy:

Professor Jin Yinan (who is director of the strategic research institute at the PLA's National Defence University) at this conference said construction of China's third aircraft carrier began in March 2015 at JNCX!! 3:57 of the video, and it would be "flat deck, catapult take off". Consistent with known rumours of course.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


I assume that means steel cutting beginning in March 2015. If true (and I do believe it most likely is, and corresponds with previous/current rumours), I think we will probably see modules of 002 start to appear at JNCX next year at earliest.
Click to expand...
I copied this over to the "wager" thread because I believe it wil prove relevant to the wager as soon as we see definitive evidence of this 1st CATOBAR carrier building.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top