Now you're just nitpicking and putting words in my mouth. I can question you back regarding how you define the carrier program as a priority, I just defined it as being an additional carrier compared to Jeff defining it as what had already been invested in the program. I never said that it would be dropped as you can see if you actually read my earlier post. A white elephant just means it is more trouble than its worth and falling out of favor means it will not be as highly or specially prioritized as before.
PLAN Aircraft Carrier programme...(Closed)
- Thread starter bd popeye
- Start date
- Status
Now you're just nitpicking and putting words in my mouth. I can question you back regarding how you define the carrier program as a priority, I just defined it as being an additional carrier compared to Jeff defining it as what had already been invested in the program. I never said that it would be dropped as you can see if you actually read my earlier post. A white elephant just means it is more trouble than its worth and falling out of favor means it will not be as highly or specially prioritized as before.
As I say...everyone is entitled to their own opinion.
They are building J-15s which naval aviators will fly. They have built two bases. They have a dedicated training facilty where they continue to train new pilots. They have a dedicated carrier research facility. All of that points to them moving forward with the program now.
I bet in a year we will know that a second carrier is building.
But time will tell.
Well the point I was more trying to make is that there isn't a line that a project has to cross to be considered a "priority," rather it has to be seen relative to the funding and attention it receives relative to all the other projects of PLAN.
So yes, the implication I'm making, is that IMO having pictures of an additional carrier is a poor metric to switch the PLAN carrier program suddenly from one which isn't a priority to one which suddenly is... considering the plethora of other information and photos we already have.
And if you asked me the question of how I define "priority," my answer would be: the proportion of funding a particular project has relative to other projects and capabilities as well as how much proportion of funding has increased or decreased over the years for a particular project.
In terms of how we can visualize it based on evidence, that is something we cannot really know.
For instance, just because we didn't see J-20 before 2011 doesn't mean it wasn't a priority for PLAAF. Just because we haven't seen decent pics of the three new SSNs for PLAN prior to the last year doesn't mean PLAN have been sitting on their hands regarding SSNs since the first two 093s were commissioned. Same goes for carriers.
Okay then I apologize for reading between the lines however the implication you were making in subsequent posts was certainly in the direction of questioning the carrier programme's utility for PLAN.
But overall I am still very much questioning the basis of your position regarding PLAN carrier programme falling out of favour.
I think I've already demonstrated again and again that lack of photos is a poor metric for measuring actual development and capabilities, and this is a point which I'm not sure if we agree on yet. If you do agree with me on this point, and you also recognize all the other visible efforts of PLAN carrier development, then I'd argue there's little evidence for you to hold your projection.... BUT if the projection of carriers falling out of favour for PLAN is due to your own perception of PLAN's strategic demands rather than material or lack of material evidence, then fair enough.
In which case I would be very happy to have a long discussion regarding the usefulness of carriers and how they are essential to power projection in blue water in a low intensity environment and also essential to the PLA strategy for fighting a high intensity opponent in the western pacific in the forseeable future.
Also, highly relevant to the subject at hand, China has recently released its first white paper on military strategy and regarding naval matters the PLA will not only seek to enhance the overall capability of the navy but also to seek open seas projection AKA blue water capability. That is something which carriers are essential for.
Last edited:
vesicles
Colonel
In fact, we should actually see more photos of the CV-16 IF China actually took their carrier program off the priority list.
WHY? The EXACT SAME reason that our fellow member Pan uses to argue for his point. Pan believes that the lack of photos means lack of activity, which points to the possibility of lack of interest on the part of the PLAN. Well, lack of activity means less exercise and less training, which I believe our friend Pan agrees. Then the CV-16 should spend more time at port. that means more opportunity for average Joe's like us and the wall climbers to snap pics. Let's face it. A carrier is huge. Unlike the J-20, where one has to actually climb up the wall at CAC to get a good look at the plane, you can see the CV-16 from miles and miles away. All you need to do is to get on a tall building, which China does NOT lack BTW, somewhere in the city and have a decent camera in hand. You will be able to get clean pics of the giant. That has been how most of the CV-16 photos that we have seen came about.
So, IF the PLAN took the carrier program off the priority list, we should see tons of photos of the CV-16 continuously coming out. In fact, this has happened before. After the initial sea trials, the CV-16 went back to the ship yard for some refit. It sat there for months and months and we got step-by-step photos of the refit and even got to analyze some fuel trucks parked on its deck. And some actually suspected something major was wrong because it spent too much time at port. And some even suggested that China was losing interest in the carrier program, because we had been getting too many photos of the CV-16.
WHY? The EXACT SAME reason that our fellow member Pan uses to argue for his point. Pan believes that the lack of photos means lack of activity, which points to the possibility of lack of interest on the part of the PLAN. Well, lack of activity means less exercise and less training, which I believe our friend Pan agrees. Then the CV-16 should spend more time at port. that means more opportunity for average Joe's like us and the wall climbers to snap pics. Let's face it. A carrier is huge. Unlike the J-20, where one has to actually climb up the wall at CAC to get a good look at the plane, you can see the CV-16 from miles and miles away. All you need to do is to get on a tall building, which China does NOT lack BTW, somewhere in the city and have a decent camera in hand. You will be able to get clean pics of the giant. That has been how most of the CV-16 photos that we have seen came about.
So, IF the PLAN took the carrier program off the priority list, we should see tons of photos of the CV-16 continuously coming out. In fact, this has happened before. After the initial sea trials, the CV-16 went back to the ship yard for some refit. It sat there for months and months and we got step-by-step photos of the refit and even got to analyze some fuel trucks parked on its deck. And some actually suspected something major was wrong because it spent too much time at port. And some even suggested that China was losing interest in the carrier program, because we had been getting too many photos of the CV-16.
Okay...this has been beat to death.
Pan believes that the priority has lessened for the program. He has stated why he believes that is so, and it is clearly his sincere belief because he has steadfastly maintained it in the face of significant comment to the contrary.
A number of us believe that the program remains very critical, important, and of high priority to the PLAN, despite there being less visible activity (to us here on the internet). We have made our points about the vast amount of funding and progress the PLAN has made, and the fact that several other critical projects have been enacted as a result which continue.
So, we simply disagree...and that is fine...and time will reveal what the ongoing priority is.
To this point the discussion has all been respectful and professional and I believe the thing to do now is simply move on from this topic and continue with the News of the PLAN Carrier program as it arises and the associated pictures.
Thanks.
Pan believes that the priority has lessened for the program. He has stated why he believes that is so, and it is clearly his sincere belief because he has steadfastly maintained it in the face of significant comment to the contrary.
A number of us believe that the program remains very critical, important, and of high priority to the PLAN, despite there being less visible activity (to us here on the internet). We have made our points about the vast amount of funding and progress the PLAN has made, and the fact that several other critical projects have been enacted as a result which continue.
So, we simply disagree...and that is fine...and time will reveal what the ongoing priority is.
To this point the discussion has all been respectful and professional and I believe the thing to do now is simply move on from this topic and continue with the News of the PLAN Carrier program as it arises and the associated pictures.
Thanks.
In the evolution of things, no one really knows which path is a dead end like the Yamatos. What ended the concept of battleships is not aircraft but smart munition like the harpoon or Exocet.
Anti air optimized surface ships are quite effective against aircraft as american CA have proven in WW2. Does APS systems and the increasing cost of missiles make armor and gun combination more viable? possibly as a single harpoon that punch through an APS shield might not do much to lets say Iowa's armor., but it is a leap frog over the battleship line.
Is ICBM effective? theoretically yes, and tests would agree. but like battleships, no one knows untill they are used in a war and thank god we never did; but pure statistics wise, they are weapons with no real track record.
The reverse is also true, does the USA need 11 CVBG? The USA should be able to do all its missions with less, but then there is national pride.
Or why does the Thai military have a carrier? what use is a 10 aircraft carrier in a real shooting war? or the tiny Italian ones? They are really for national pride and force projection against their less affluent neighbors.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
Hopefully that story will put an end to all the speculation about the PLAN somehow having a change of heart on carriers.
The PLAN's future lies on the open seas, and it needs carriers to be a serious player in that game.
The PLAN is already laying the foundations by starting to set up supply, and eventually, full fledged naval bases in the Indian Ocean and beyond.
It seems like you don't know what aircraft carriers are build for in the first place.
None of that is mentioned in the article although it does have a solid anti-China and China-threat slant.
I would love to discuss the new Chinese defense white paper's clues to the PLAN's future development, but it probably belongs in the PLAN News thread rather than here.
Nuclear subs, large destroyers/cruisers, LHDs/LPDs, and supply ships all contribute to "open seas" operations. Carriers bring unique and powerful qualities but are not fundamentally necessary for long distance naval power projection.
Depends on what we mean by "long distance". Carriers are how Naval power penetrates into land operations. One of their key roles is "base projection" so to speak. If we presume that China will have a need for operating over foreign land and set up a mobile and portable base of operations, carriers are a necessary part of that equation. If China only needs a Navy that can deter other Navies, carriers aren't absolutely necessary. If China needs a Navy that can conduct and support operations in foreign territory, then carriers are a must.
- Status