PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)

Bltizo said:

I think dingyibvs and latenlazy were making a caveat that a simple mean failure rate count isn't always accurate depending on whether the distribution of failures was a result of something like improving the system and/or incorrect initial testing conditions.
Reading over some of your replies on the last page I'm not sure if you missed the rationale of what they were suggesting?

Click to expand...

For the sake of bringing closure to this point over mean rate and let's just say as you pointed out, the mean rate is not accurate, how does it change the conversation? The mean rate in the report is just a means to an end, and the end point is that reliability is not where it needs to be. So even if the mean rate is not accurate does it mean reliability has suddenly gone up or conversely it is worst, with the latter being exactly what the report is emphasizing i.e. reliability needs to improve. So what is the point of arguing over whether the mean rate is correctly determined or not?

latenlazy said:

Yano, I was giving some thought to what potential timelines would look like, and concluded that our back and forth about this are somewhat irrelevant to date of deployment. Even if an EMALS system was ready and launching planes it wouldn't matter. It still wouldn't see operation on a fully operational CVN for at least a half decade, and maybe a little over that. This is presuming that they build a catapult in either of their first two indigenous carriers, and we're all reasonably certain the first one won't have a catapult, so that's left to the second one earliest, and maybe even the third one (which pushes even the most optimistic timeline a good 3-5 years back). I think, at the very least, we all now know that EMALS as the catapult the PLAN will go with from the get go is a reasonable expectation, if not with absolute certainty, and, frankly, I think that's the most important takeaway.

Click to expand...

The phrasing of the chinese military online article does seem to suggest the idea of jumping straight to EMALS as a possibility... but I'm not sure if that's journalistic laziness/ignorance about possible steam catapult development or a subtle hint.

and of course, Rear Admiral Ma also doesn't mention anything about steam catapults, but that might just be him choosing not to say answers to questions that weren't asked. It would have been interesting if a journalist had explicitly asked whether the PLAN would use steamcats before EMALS first.

Bltizo said:

The phrasing of the chinese military online article does seem to suggest the idea of jumping straight to EMALS as a possibility... but I'm not sure if that's journalistic laziness/ignorance about possible steam catapult development or a subtle hint.

and of course, Rear Admiral Ma also doesn't mention anything about steam catapults, but that might just be him choosing not to say answers to questions that weren't asked. It would have been interesting if a journalist had explicitly asked whether the PLAN would use steamcats before EMALS first.

Click to expand...

I'm simply saying that we now know an EMALS isn't simply an option that's being explored, but a serious option that's in full development, waiting on a decision. It's a ways more advanced than what we all postulated a year or two ago.

Brumby said:

For the sake of bringing closure to this point over mean rate and let's just say as you pointed out, the mean rate is not accurate, how does it change the conversation? The mean rate in the report is just a means to an end, and the end point is that reliability is not where it needs to be. So even if the mean rate is not accurate does it mean reliability has suddenly gone up or conversely it is worst, with the latter being exactly what the report is emphasizing i.e. reliability needs to improve. So what is the point of arguing over whether the mean rate is correctly determined or not?

Click to expand...

What's the point of focusing on details if they're not accurate? How do you know reliability is not where it needs to be if not from these details? Are you relying on expert opinion to reach the conclusion that reliability is not where it needs to be? If we're to rely on expert opinion then why insist on details? Is Rear Admiral Ma not expert enough for you?

Brumby said:

For the sake of bringing closure to this point over mean rate and let's just say as you pointed out, the mean rate is not accurate, how does it change the conversation? The mean rate in the report is just a means to an end, and the end point is that reliability is not where it needs to be. So even if the mean rate is not accurate does it mean reliability has suddenly gone up or conversely it is worst, with the latter being exactly what the report is emphasizing i.e. reliability needs to improve. So what is the point of arguing over whether the mean rate is correctly determined or not?

Click to expand...

Uhhh... I'll bring in a blunt analogy.
I am trying to create a wooden shape that will roll. I start off with the shape of a square cube. I try to roll it 201 times. Each time it doesn't roll (it's a square cube). But then before the 202 roll I take a big metal file and turn the cube into a round sphere. And now each time I try to roll it it rolls. In fact, for the next subsequent 1766 times I try to roll it, it rolls successfully. So, should I include rolls 1 to 201 with 202 to 1967 as part of the same testing result set?

It is an extreme example, but that's why I'm saying mean rate isn't necessarily the bees knees, because if extensive modifications are made to a system after initially high fail rates which then resulted in significantly lower fail rates, then it would be logically insensible to include the data of pre and post modification as part of the same data set. It would make more sense to separate them

I imagine this should or can only really be separated after extensive testing after the modification. I'm sure there's a statistical law or what not that determines the statistical legitimacy of what I'm suggesting, but for our purposes my stupid example should suffice.

dingyibvs said:

Here's my understanding of our situation. Rear Admiral Ma released a statement, and we're debating the relevance and thereby the implications of his statement, which I think we can all agree is relevant to our understanding of the Chinese EMALS program. Many of us highly value his statement and are willing to deduct, infer, and speculate at least partially based on his statement. Brumby, on the other hand, does not value his statement highly and values details instead. I, at least, in an effort to point out to him that details available in the public domain can never be sufficient to make an accurate assessment of the program, use the 201/1967 data to illustrate our point. It is, in essence, an example of why public domain data is useless, and why you can make a more accurate assessment of the program by the actions and words (in the PLA's case, since, again, they correlate exceptionally well with their actions) of those who DO have access to sufficient quantities of data.

Essentially, our conversation here is about what to make of RA Ma's statement. Should it be valued, or should it be dismissed in the absence of details?

Click to expand...

I appreciate the clarification.

latenlazy said:

Yano, I was giving some thought to what potential timelines would look like, and concluded that our back and forth about this are somewhat irrelevant to date of deployment. Even if an EMALS system was ready and launching planes it wouldn't matter. It still wouldn't see operation on a fully operational CVN for at least a half decade, and maybe a little over that. This is presuming that they build a catapult in either of their first two indigenous carriers, and we're all reasonably certain the first one won't have a catapult, so that's left to the second one earliest, and maybe even the third one (which pushes even the most optimistic timeline a good 3-5 years back). I think, at the very least, we all now know that EMALS as the catapult the PLAN will go with from the get go is a reasonable expectation, if not with absolute certainty, and, frankly, I think that's the most important takeaway.

Click to expand...

Following the PLA is like putting together pieces of a jigsaw puzzle, I see this as another piece of the puzzle being placed in the right place. Blitzo and I share the opinion that EMALS is likely in the beginning stages of testing, which judging by Jeff's timeline would be at least 5-6 years off for actual flight testing. This time table would correspond rather well with our presumed timetable of a catapult-equipped CV being launched at least 3-5 years from now, which up until now is almost pure speculation. If, for example (purely an example!), we hear of news that IEPS would be ready for CV in the 2020 frame, then we'd begin to see a pattern of components necessary for an EMALS equipped CV being ready for testing on a real ship around 2020, and then we'd really have something.

Bltizo said:

The phrasing of the chinese military online article does seem to suggest the idea of jumping straight to EMALS as a possibility... but I'm not sure if that's journalistic laziness/ignorance about possible steam catapult development or a subtle hint.

and of course, Rear Admiral Ma also doesn't mention anything about steam catapults, but that might just be him choosing not to say answers to questions that weren't asked. It would have been interesting if a journalist had explicitly asked whether the PLAN would use steamcats before EMALS first.

Click to expand...

Are there any recent rumors of PLAN developing steam cats?

delft said:

Are there any recent rumors of PLAN developing steam cats?

Click to expand...

I think pop3 has mentioned that china's first catobar carrier will use steam cats a year or so back, but I can't recall any significant leaks of semi official statements regarding steam catapult development.

It will be interesting to read what the big shrimps will make of rear admiral ma's statements.

It seems to me EMALS and Steam Cat are just two different systems. I don't think you have to go to Steam first before going to EMALS. Jeff may want to comment on this?

antiterror13 said:

It seems to me EMALS and Steam Cat are just two different systems. I don't think you have to go to Steam first before going to EMALS. Jeff may want to comment on this?

Click to expand...

I have a theory that if steam catapult technology is already ready they may go with it first because it's a more immediate fit with steam engines, and thus present a lower risk approach than figuring out the electrical systems for an EMALS on a carrier, with plans for a refit in the future.

It may also be that they plan on going with EMALS if their experience building the first carrier or two goes smoothly, but with the option of using a steam catapult as a backup option if things are rough.

Finally, I've though that it's possible that decision making within the PLAN is divided, and POP3 either reports for one side, or reports based on available knowledge that could shift around a bit.