Is my argument that carriers are more important and built in limited numbers? Yes, it is. The importance means it is difficult to try out different carrier designs as they did trying out destroyer designs. The limited number means it is better to keep the difference between hulls as small as possible. We are actually in agreement on the premises, but you somehow concluded it is better to rush for steam catapults than to wait.
I have not told you what my conclusion. I've only given you what PLAN conclusion is. And I never said it's better to keep difference between hulls as small as possible. My point is that as ships get larger and more complex, you will see less number of a class built. If PLAN wants to proceed from Adm K class to a super carrier like the ones in USN, it will have to make changes. And the changes will be gradual. And don't try to divert the conversation by arguing this, because I'm just clarifying my original point. I don't want to discuss what kind of carrier PLAN wants at the end.
Actually, I am mimicking what PLAN thinks. PLAN has waited this long to have everything ready which made the Liaoning so successful. There is little reason why they would now rush things with their future carriers.
Your examples with VLS and destroyers aren't really applicable when it comes to carriers. I have addressed this point already, which you failed to see. As an analogy, I can buy a bike, then buy another one when I realize the first one isn't so suitable, and so on. I can afford to buy at least a new one every year, but I can't do that if we are talking about cars. Swap bikes with destroyers and cars with carriers, then perhaps you would start to see my points.
You are not mimicking what PLAN thinks. You made up your mind and are now trying to piece evidence together. As for your argument that PLAN waited this long for CV-16, have you heard of the Project 048? Do you know when that was decided on and how long it has been since that time?
My examples of VLS and destroyers completely apply here, because they show how PLAN thinks. Even though they can build multiple destroyers every year, have 2 additional classes of ships in 051C and Sovs still represent additional support/maintenance that they have to deal with. Same with the VLS on 051C and 052C. Do you have evidence that the cost of maintaining steam catapult is much higher than that of the cost of maintaining the destroyer class 051C and Sovs? Remember, they actually created industrial support for everything on Sov class and for VLS on Russian stuff on 051C. And they are also asking the military industrial complex to develop upgraded parts now to support Sov in its modernization effort. Can you show evidence that the cost of supporting steam catapult is significantly higher than that?
I have said this already, but I shall repeat it here: what POP3 said does not answer any of our question. POP3 didn't say PLAN will go for steam catapult. Rather he is confident that PLAN would go for steam catapults, with the rationale that PLAN has been doing research with steam catapults much longer than with EMALS.
I think POP3 has more information than we have. And he has seen enough that makes him believe that PLAN will go for steam catapult first. None of us really know what PLAN will go for until that day we see it. Our argument has been that PLAN will go for steam catapult if they are ready to build a CATOBAR carrier and EMAL catapult is not ready rather than wait and not build CATOBAR carrier and wait for EMAL. And my argument is that PLAN's past actions dictate this is what they will choose. Your argument has been that my examples were less important systems, so it doesn't apply to carrier.
As a response to what some interpret to be an assertion about PLAN choice of steam catapults, I pointed out that there are more considerations than just the length of time spent on R&D of steam catapults. This somehow got people excited enough to debate with me for hours. It seems people are too focused on the technology aspect, forgetting about the parts involving human and infrastructures.
Nobody forgot it. And you are not the only person to consider maintenance and infrastructure. The additional support and maintenance required for 051C and Sov are well known here and a lot of people disagree with PLAN's decision to get them. But in the end, we are speculating on what PLAN will do rather than what you find logic. This entire debate has been about you argument that PLAN should not forget the cost involved with support and maintenance of additional catapult. But PLAN has their own data/beliefs over the progress of technology, the cost of maintaining and support different subsystems, how it values certain capabilities and training for those capabilities, which you and I are not privy to. It has shown in the past that it is willing to take the hit on additional cost of maintaining supporting additional class of ships, VLS systems and weaponry for getting certain capabilities sooner. In this equation of whether to go for steam catapult if EMAL is not ready, POP3 has far more information over where PLAN is at in all aspect than you and I have. It's not surprising to me that PLAN would be willing to go for steam catapult if EMAL is ready based on PLAN's past behaviour.
