PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Brumby said:

As it is often said, the devil is in the details. Without any test statistics, the definition of successful can mean anything. In comparison, the disclosed US tests results at Lakehurst after 1967 launches has 201 failures. By that definition, no one is calling it successful.

Click to expand...

Speaking of details, if the first 201 launches were failures and the rest 1766 were successful, then I think we can all agree that it's successful.

The point is, no use in looking for details, especially not with the PLA. Given that the official channels rarely boast, I think it's rather safe to say that the program is pretty far along.

dingyibvs said:

Speaking of details, if the first 201 launches were failures and the rest 1766 were successful, then I think we can all agree that it's successful..

Click to expand...

Sorry it did not work out that way. The mean cycles between critical failures was 240.

dingyibvs said:

The point is, no use in looking for details, especially not with the PLA. Given that the official channels rarely boast, I think it's rather safe to say that the program is pretty far along.

Click to expand...

The issue in my mind isn't the lack of details but the willingness of consumers to make elastic projections despite the lack of details.

Brumby said:

The issue in my mind isn't the lack of details but the willingness of consumers to make elastic projections despite the lack of details.

Click to expand...

What kind of elastic projections, and which consumers are you talking about?

I think the majority of posters on this forum are quite aware of how to read these kind of rare media statements by the PLA.

Bltizo said:

What kind of elastic projections, and which consumers are you talking about?

Click to expand...

#3171. That this program is very far along. There is no basis to make that kind of conclusion.

Brumby said:

#3171

Click to expand...

So in other words, you're saying you'd prefer it if the article gave some kind of solid number to define what they mean by "successful"?

I.e.: you think they might be getting away with something which might actually be unsuccessful depending on what kind of metric one is using to measure it?
That's the kind of details we can't really get to ruminate on WRT PLA development, unless we have additional information.

Bltizo said:

So in other words, you're saying you'd prefer it if the article gave some kind of solid number to define what they mean by "successful"?
.

Click to expand...

As I had previously stated in my original post. The statement is so vague and lacking details that "successful" is open to mean anything. I have yet to see a rebuttal by you or anyone else that undermine my statement.

Bltizo said:

I.e.: you think they might be getting away with something which might actually be unsuccessful depending on what kind of metric one is using to measure it?
That's the kind of details we can't really get to ruminate on WRT PLA development, unless we have additional information.

Click to expand...

I have not explicitly nor implicitly suggest anything about the program beyond what I have stated originally. Anything beyond that is your choice of words and not mine. I understand China watch will always lack details but it is not a passport to project something beyond what is not supported by immediate evidence. I can accept the fact that it is no longer a rumoured project because of official acknowledgment but there is simply no further details to determine the status of the program. As is, it is uncorroborated and so judgement is reserved until such time evidence presents itself to move it along the scale.

Let us not forget and this has been repeated by others here before, that we have gleaned and studied information about Chinese weapon developments before, well before they went into production. Models or drawings might have been created, but never went into production, that did not surprise us as hype. But correct me if I am wrong, I don't think we have ever come across an official claim, especially a technological one, that did not stand up to the test of time.

Brumby said:

#3171. That this program is very far along. There is no basis to make that kind of conclusion.

Click to expand...

There is SOME basis. For example, when we finally got an official on the record talking about the J-20 it turned out to be only within two years from being revealed. Similarly, on the record announcement that CV-1 was going to be built in Liaoning came only months before they cut first steel.

What the general trend of PLA watching has shown us is that being on the record about something indicates an advanced degree of development. There could be some good reasons for why that's the case, including some form of media non disclosure policy on projects that don't make it past a certain threshold. That's not to say that China is far along with EMALS is a hard conclusion, but it's something one could conclude with some merit. The lack of details not only makes suspect elastic projections, but inelastic ones as well. We do not know that they have done thorough testing, but we also do not know that they haven't. However, we do know what the general trend of strong statements in the public record imply by example of historical precedent, so the idea that a Chinese EMALS is pretty far along is not dismissible regardless of its likelihoood.

Brumby said:

As I had previously stated in my original post. The statement is so vague and lacking details that "successful" is open to mean anything. I have yet to see a rebuttal by you or anyone else that undermine my statement.

Click to expand...

There's nothing for me to rebutt -- you're asking for evidence that we don't have to prove a statement that was made likely to be deliberately vague in the first place.

I have not explicitly nor implicitly suggest anything about the program beyond what I have stated originally. Anything beyond that is your choice of words and not mine. I understand China watch will always lack details but it is not a passport to project something beyond what is not supported by immediate evidence. I can accept the fact that it is no longer a rumoured project because of official acknowledgment but there is simply no further details to determine the status of the program. As is, it is uncorroborated and so judgement is reserved until such time evidence presents itself to move it along the scale.

Click to expand...

What I draw from the overall statements by Rear Admiral Ma is confirmation that an EMALS catapult is under advanced stages of development, likely with at least one functioning prototype, and that he as a leader on the project is very satisfied with its development and performance either projected or demonstrated.

What confuses me is why you're focusing on what is arguably the least important and hardest to verify part of the statement.

Brumby said:

#3171. That this program is very far along. There is no basis to make that kind of conclusion.

Click to expand...

Okay, well then I think we have to first define what "very far along" means for you and me.

For me (and for the Chinese EMALS project in particular) it means something beyond initial R&D into the principle subsystems of an operating system, and at about the point where an operable prototype or more has been or is undergoing its testing phase.