PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Status
Not open for further replies.

dingyibvs

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

That's precisely the type of reasoning that prevents from the western press from more accurately reporting on the Chinese military. The type of "basis" that they look for simply does not exist when it comes to the PLA. You need to learn to read between the lines and extrapolate. The "basis" you should be looking for is that a current high-ranking PLA official who's intimately involved in the EMALS program is speaking very affirmatively regarding its progress. That simply doesn't happen unless the program is very far along, which means that it is, indeed, a passport to project beyond immediate evidence.

I'm simply stating this based on well over a decade's experience of closely following the PLA, and I've debated with many just like you along the way. I know from experience that I won't convince you because your reasoning is, well, perfectly reasonable, while the way the PLA releases info is perfectly unreasonable. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), it always takes some time for our reasonable minds to come to terms with the unreasonable :D
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
I do think it's worth mentioning that in the interview Ma Weiming also seemed to say testing was going smoothly, which is to suggest that 1) they may not have completed tests, and 2) they've probably been in testing for at least a decent while now.
 

Brumby

Major
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.

There is a difference between affirming the existence of a program versus drawing a conclusion of where it is when there is no evidence to suggest in fact it is the case. In other words concluding a view and unsubstantiated speculation is rather merged at times and in this instance there is more of the latter than the former.

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.

I understand with China watch, details are hard to come by - I get it. Invariably some kind of conclusion has to be drawn from incomplete information - I get that too.

Having said that, the greater the claim, the greater is the demand of substantiation. That is simply a function of reasonableness and grounded judgement. There is a major difference between acknowledgement of a program and speculation that it is well advanced. Once you make that kind of speculative statement, it begs the question where exactly is it in the development curve because the former leads to the latter. You can't then say that it is unknown because it then makes your original statement fallacious.

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 am simply pointing out that in the absence of specifics, any judgement thereof should be guarded and within what can be reasonably drawn from the limited disclosure.

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.
I have no dispute with what you have outlined. It is well grounded and can be reasonably inferred about the program.

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

Primarily the details would give context to the whole conversation. Precisely because of the lack of specifics, all kinds of speculation has surfaced.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
I understand with China watch, details are hard to come by - I get it. Invariably some kind of conclusion has to be drawn from incomplete information - I get that too.

Having said that, the greater the claim, the greater is the demand of substantiation. That is simply a function of reasonableness and grounded judgement. There is a major difference between acknowledgement of a program and speculation that it is well advanced. Once you make that kind of speculative statement, it begs the question where exactly is it in the development curve because the former leads to the latter. You can't then say that it is unknown because it then makes your original statement fallacious.
This might be a disagreement over the philosophy of knowledge and measurement of credibility. While I general I agree with the greater claim=greater demand of substantiation, what qualifies as a strong claim and adequate substantiation is based on the context of what you apply it to (and of course our own judgement). The measure of how strong the substantiation is based on the claim can be inconsistent and a non-constant, and may require continuous calibration in opaque situations, which is pretty much ingrained in the nature of this hobby. That's where we're probably disagreeing. I see a statement on the record about a program, and I measure that as very credible with certain implications based on the pattern of precedents that I've observed within a general context. In fact, for me, the order of credibility is something to the effect of rumour mill-->leaked documents/studies-->satellite pics-->public statements-->real time pictures in that order for consideration of least to most credible and in lowest to greatest program maturity. You may be adopting a separate set of standards, and we may disagree about which set is most appropriate for the situation.

Anyways, I believe we've exhausted this line of discussion. I'm just going to leave this for future updates. As oft said in this forum, we shall see :)
 

Brumby

Major
This might be a disagreement over the philosophy of knowledge and measurement of credibility. While I general I agree with the greater claim=greater demand of substantiation, what qualifies as a strong claim and adequate substantiation is based on the context of what you apply it to (and of course our own judgement). The measure of how strong the substantiation is based on the claim can be inconsistent and a non-constant, and may require continuous calibrated in opaque situations, which is pretty much ingrained in the nature of this hobby.
Agree.

That's where we're probably disagreeing. I see a statement on the record about a program, and I measure that as very credible with certain implications based on the pattern of precedents that I've observed within a general context.

I had not disputed the existence of the program. I have no problem if people choose to extrapolate it. I would only ask for the basis of the extrapolation. If people choose to speculate, I also have no problem. The problem I have is that the speculation supposedly have truth values attached to it.
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
Agree.



I had not disputed the existence of the program. I have no problem if people choose to extrapolate it. I would only ask for the basis of the extrapolation. If people choose to speculate, I also have no problem. The problem I have is that the speculation supposedly have truth values attached to it.
The basis of the extrapolation is as I've mentioned, which is the strength of public on the record statements by officials directly connected to a program in correlation with the maturity of that program. Off the top of my head, I can't name a single instance where we got an on the record statement about a program by an attache that we've otherwise only had knowledge of through leaks, that didn't prove in retrospect to be in serious development with a good degree of maturity. Maybe you can though.
 

broadsword

Brigadier
There is a difference between affirming the existence of a program versus drawing a conclusion of where it is when there is no evidence to suggest in fact it is the case. In other words concluding a view and unsubstantiated speculation is rather merged at times and in this instance there is more of the latter than the former.

Dingyibvs post just above yours puts it better https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/pl...ogramme-news-views.t6479/page-319#post-331137
That's precisely the type of reasoning that prevents from the western press from more accurately reporting on the Chinese military. The type of "basis" that they look for simply does not exist when it comes to the PLA. You need to learn to read between the lines and extrapolate. The "basis" you should be looking for is that a current high-ranking PLA official who's intimately involved in the EMALS program is speaking very affirmatively regarding its progress. That simply doesn't happen unless the program is very far along, which means that it is, indeed, a passport to project beyond immediate evidence.

I'm simply stating this based on well over a decade's experience of closely following the PLA, and I've debated with many just like you along the way. I know from experience that I won't convince you because your reasoning is, well, perfectly reasonable, while the way the PLA releases info is perfectly unreasonable. Unfortunately (or fortunately?), it always takes some time for our reasonable minds to come to terms with the unreasonable :D
 

Brumby

Major
The basis of the extrapolation is as I've mentioned, which is the strength of public on the record statements by officials directly connected to a program in correlation with the maturity of that program. Off the top of my head, I can't name a single instance where we got an on the record statement about a program by an attache that we've otherwise only had knowledge of through leaks, that didn't prove in retrospect to be in serious development with a good degree of maturity. Maybe you can though.

So let's take your line of reasoning to some form of logical conclusion. It is imply that the development is well advanced. What exactly does that mean within the development cycle? .
 

latenlazy

Brigadier
So let's take your line of reasoning to some form of logical conclusion. It is imply that the development is well advanced. What exactly does that mean within the development cycle? .

By my personal assessment, given prior conversations we've had in this thread about the possibility of an EMALS, we now know, presuming that what Ma Weiming says is accurate, that it's at a later stage of development than some of the more conservative assessments that have been discussed before, and that it's clearly moved beyond research. Ma's wording implies that they're working on something intended for operation and not simply exploration, and that it's unlikely they've only just entered this stage. If we piece that statement together with satellite pictures that claim an EMALS facility in Tujiating, and if that's indeed what those pictures indicated, testing could have been going on for as long as 4-5 years. Since those pictures show a facility without a runway, we can probably presume that testing hasn't moved to actual aircraft launches, just dummy weights.

Given that Ma has also stated clearly that whether the technology actually gets picked up is up to the PLAN, we can also infer that the PLAN has not yet committed to the technology. This could be because the PLAN is more conservative about capability and performance than Ma himself. Perhaps they want to see testing of actual aircraft launches before they themselves sign off on the technology and adopt/commit to it. A corollary to this could be that the lack of J-15s or the lack of a catapult intended airframe is serving as a bottleneck to testing. It could also be that the PLAN hasn't finalized the launch technology for the current CVN they're building, or that they have finalized the launch technology for that CVN but it's a STOBAR like the Liaoning, so they're not in a rush to procure the technology. If that's the case they might not have figured out the design of the 2nd CVN and whether it should have a catapult.

It could also be that the confirmation of an EMALS program does not preclude another successful program for steam catapults, and the PLAN is still deciding which technology to go with. It could be that the EMALS system itself is quite ready, but the systems around the ship that would have to go with it are not (IEPS? Electric Output?). Perhaps that reason ties back to the generator and propulsion technology to both or either of the first two potential CVNs. Steam catapults might simply be more attractive if the carrier itself were steam powered. Maybe it's a combination of all these reasons.

Regardless, I think the most important inference and takeaway for me is that the the EMALS program may actually be about as mature as it's going to be without doing actual plane launches, and the blocker may end up being either the PLAN itself or the other parts of China's CV program, rather than any developmental or technological difficulties. Also, that given how long it takes to properly build and fit a CV, if they're already potentially 4-5 years into testing it's entirely possible that either CV-1 or CV-2 adopts it and jumps straight to that technology, bypassing steam altogether. Of course, it could also be that POP3's rumour that the first catapult China uses will be steam comes to pass (interestingly how that rumour plays out could suggest things about requirements and decision making for the CV program).

My 2 cents.
 

Brumby

Major
By my personal assessment, given prior conversations we've had in this thread about the possibility of an EMALS, we now know, presuming that what Ma Weiming says is accurate, that it's at a later stage of development than some of the more conservative assessments that have been discussed before, and that it's clearly moved beyond research. Ma's wording implies that they're working on something intended for operation and not simply exploration, and that it's unlikely they've only just entered this stage. If we piece that statement together with satellite pictures that claim an EMALS facility in Tujiating, and if that's indeed what those pictures indicated, testing could have been going on for as long as 4-5 years. Since those pictures show a facility without a runway, we can probably presume that testing hasn't moved to actual aircraft launches, just dummy weights.

Given that Ma has also stated clearly that whether the technology actually gets picked up is up to the PLAN, we can also infer that the PLAN has not yet committed to the technology. This could be because the PLAN is more conservative about capability and performance than Ma himself. Perhaps they want to see testing of actual aircraft launches before they themselves sign off on the technology and adopt/commit to it. A corollary to this could be that the lack of J-15s or the lack of a catapult intended airframe is serving as a bottleneck to testing. It could also be that the PLAN hasn't finalized the launch technology for the current CVN they're building, or that they have finalized the launch technology for that CVN but it's a STOBAR like the Liaoning, so they're not in a rush to procure the technology. If that's the case they might not have figured out the design of the 2nd CVN and whether it should have a catapult.

It could also be that the confirmation of an EMALS program does not preclude another successful program for steam catapults, and the PLAN is still deciding which technology to go with. It could be that the EMALS system itself is quite ready, but the systems around the ship that would have to go with it are not (IEPS? Electric Output?). Perhaps that reason ties back to the generator and propulsion technology to both or either of the first two potential CVNs. Steam catapults might simply be more attractive if the carrier itself were steam powered. Maybe it's a combination of all these reasons.

Regardless, I think the most important inference and takeaway for me is that the the EMALS program may actually be about as mature as it's going to be without doing actual plane launches, and the blocker may end up being either the PLAN itself or the other parts of China's CV program, rather than any developmental or technological difficulties. Also, that given how long it takes to properly build and fit a CV, if they're already potentially 4-5 years into testing it's entirely possible that either CV-1 or CV-2 adopts it and jumps straight to that technology, bypassing steam altogether. Of course, it could also be that POP3's rumour that the first catapult China uses will be steam comes to pass (interestingly how that rumour plays out could suggest things about requirements and decision making for the CV program).

My 2 cents.

Fundamentally I don't have a problem with what you have outlined which is a combination of deduction, inference and some degree of speculation that some amount of development work and testing had been ongoing. They may even have done some dead-load testings. Whether actual aircraft launches had been conducted and the degree if any is unknown and unlikely will be made known. In effect, we don't know how far progressed this program actually is and any assertion that it is well advanced is not backed by any evidence and was simply my point from the onset.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top