CV-18 Fujian/003 CATOBAR carrier thread

[Blitzo]

Let us wait until 001A gets its number.


If it is a version of Liaoning, it is 001x. If not, it is 00x. Do you understand the system of classes (001, 002, 003, ...) and versions (00x, 00xA, 00xB, ...)? Same hull with same propulsion = same class.

No, too simple -- in this regard I agree with Iron Man, that the 001, 002, 003 designations may not necessarily mean "same hull with same propulsion".

For example, what the second domestic carrier is a highly evolved hull of Liaoning and 001A?


At this stage we should use the information that the rumours have given us for describing what the 00X designations mean, and we should avoid using designations that big shrimps have yet to legitimize.

In other words, right now the only 00X designations in circulation should only be:
001A: STOBAR, a ship that is a modified Liaoning
002: CATOBAR, conventional powered, full displacement below or slightly above 80k tons

Anything else beyond that information, we simply do not know.

 

[Iron Man]

Like it or not, rumours are central to PLA watching, and they help to limit our area of uncertainty as to what a certain product or system could look like or is meant to be, to provide a consensus until new information comes to light. Obviously the interpretation of those rumours will be up to one's own biases, but then again any indicators or evidence can always be modified based on one's own biases.
That's why we have discussions to debate what various rumours can mean, and to use those discussions to reach a likely consensus, while fully understanding that new information or rumours could turn previous consensuses up on its head.
But that depends on everyone agreeing on some fundamentals first, like the role of rumours and big shrimps in PLA watching. I suppose you could call this a bias that differentiates the various sides if you really want to.

I'm feeling like you take PLA watching much more seriously than I do. For me, PLA watching has always been a matter of the mostly blind leading the mostly blind. The very fact that some 'new rumor' could pop up and derail years' worth of "consensus" is enough for me to never take any consensus seriously. The relevant example here is the "consensus" of using (as far as anyone knows) a completely fan-based hull designation system and adhering to it like it was gospel. Based on how rigidly and firmly people are holding on to this system, one would think it had already achieved semi-official status in PLA watching circles, when it fact its legitimacy remains entirely within the realm of the internet.

And FYI, at this point the current consensus based on existing rumours is that 002 will be a conventionally powered CATOBAR carrier whose full displacement has been described to be between below 80k tons and slightly above 80k tons.The exact type of conventional propulsion, the number of catapults, etc, are unknown or at least lacking in solid support.

I'm not sure what you would normally describe as "solid support". What kind of solid support does conventional CATOBAR with an 80,000 ton displacement enjoy? As solid as internet rumours are?

BTW, you should note that you could replace "002" in this paragraph with "CV-18" and absolutely nothing would have changed about what you were saying.

The record is not time-perfect on every single instance, and everyone knows that new rumours can change the equation. But to reject all that, and reduce the discussion to only the simplest and most basic of aspects, and then to call people's differing interpretations of rumours and discussion as fanboyism is frankly a little bit offensive to the methodology and the very respectable history of predictions that have been made through the interpretation and critical analysis of rumours.

Straw man attacks should be beneath you, TBH. Please link and quote where I advocated to "reduce the discussion to only the simplest and most basic of aspects". Pretty please. Seriously. Please link and quote where I made a general attack that "people's differing interpretations of rumours and discussion" represents "fanboyism". Go ahead.

 

[weig2000]

Who are you referring to here, I wonder? Little ole me? While you are free to decide for yourself what is helpful to you, you certainly don't get to decide for others how helpful designations are for them.

I was not trying to point to any person or member particularly, but rather to the opinion or sentiment expressed some pages back as I remember. I'm too lazy to go back and search who exactly said so, but in any case it's not the person but the points rather that is more important.

Also, I didn't come up with my own, as if I invented any new designations. This says to me that you don't understand the purpose of the discussion on which designations to use. As I have said before, I prefer to use to hull numbers, like CV-16, CV-17, CV-18, etc. It is a hull designation in active use by the PLAN itself; do you dispute this or the likelihood that future carriers will increase their hull numbers by one digit at a time? It is also completely class-neutral and avoids any personal bias on the perceived speed of evolution in Chinese carrier design.

I understand CV-16, CV-17, CV-18 etc. were the hull numbers, they're not necessarily contradictory to the designations of class such as 001, 002, etc. Hull numbers are official numbers that must be given by PLAN, and we won't know them until they're commissioned. In that sense, CV-17, CV-18 and such are a bit speculative now since PLAN can give nonconsecutive hull numbers (this occurred before, for example, 071 class). That said, I don't find they're too confusing as long as we're clear about the context.

the other hand, class designations like 001, 001A, 001B, 002, 002A, 003 are not actually used by ANY official PLAN sources and represents the personal opinions of online netizens. So pop3 started using these designations several years ago. Well that's all fine and good, but did he actually and specifically say that he thinks these are the actual designators used by the PLAN internally to refer to their carriers? Please post a link to such a statement from him. Or is this a personal schema that he decided would be a good system for designating carriers, with the rest of the Chinese military watching internet community subsequently deciding to run with it for lack of any real substantive knowledge? Remember that just because it's on the internet and has been around doesn't mean it is the actual truth. You may say that it's been around for so long and is as good as any to use, but I have been pointing out that clearly it has limitations, with various people not understanding which carriers other people are referring to with their own personal sub-designations, like 001B and 002A, and getting into arguments about how various designations make China look slower or less advanced, or politically or financially constrained, or whatever other bias you want to insert. Such an arbitrary and essentially personalized system of class designations ruins the objectivity of Chinese carrier discussion. And now we are even talking about a "003". Did pop3 start using this number recently? Can you attribute the veracity of this designation to his august pronouncements? People seem to be making up all sorts of personal designations off the coattails of pop3's original schema which itself is not necessarily reflective of any inside knowledge.

If you refer to future Chinese carriers by their hull numbers, you can be free to talk about whatever capability you think a given future hull will have without boxing yourself or someone else in by a purely hypothetical designator like "001B" or "002" or "002A". This incoherent potpourri of theoretical class designations is what is not helpful to the discussion of Chinese carriers. If I refer to a future Chinese carrier by the hull number "CV-18", do you somehow not know which carrier I am referring to? How about if I start talking about a "001C"? Do you know which carrier I am talking about now?

As I said in my post, 001, 002 etc. are not my personalized designation system. They were started probably by pop3 and have since been widely used in Chinese military forums (where we get much of latest updates on Chinese carriers), Chinese internet news apps, and indeed Chinese television media such as CCTV and other local TV programs. They're not exactly official but I happen to find them useful and helpful. Clearly I'm not alone.

Now, I also said, anyone is perfectly free to invent their own system. Given that the use of 001, 001A, 002 etc. have become rather entrenched and quite common, an alternative designation system will be difficult to get traction. It's an opinion, a strong one at that, but you don't have to agree with or believe it. So I think designations like 001, 001A, 002 will continue to be used widely, whether you or I like them or not. And I just find them as good as any, if not better. That's all I'm saying.

 

[kwaigonegin]

Of course all "theories" or ideas that we come up with are based on our own subjective ways of interpreting information.

In this case, if everyone is disagreeing with the theory/idea that someone is coming up with, then that suggests there is either a discrepancy in the interpretation of information, or that there is a discrepancy of the information that is being interpreted in the first place.


So when vesicles "well if everyone disagrees with you, you might want to rethink your theory" is really just another way of saying "reconsidering how you're interpreting the information". It's all well and good to say all interpretation is subjective, but to paraphrase vesicles, "if everyone is interpreting the information differently to you, you might want to reconsider how you're interpreting the information".


This is no longer 2006, when reliable information about the Chinese programme was scarce and limited and populated by fanboyism careening in all directions into the dark. The reliable rumours and even some photo and physical evidence, along with some official statements that we have to work with, now in 2016 is so much more than what we had in 2006.
Combine that with other aspects of Chinese military and navy modernization that we've seen over the years and how it is expected to continue, as well as China's overall geopolitical and military requirements, then yes I do think there is a consensus which can be reached with everything that we have.

That's a reeeeeaaallly long winded explanation of saying we're right and he was wrong

 

[Blitzo]

I'm feeling like you take PLA watching much more seriously than I do.

I think so too.

For me, PLA watching has always been a matter of the mostly blind leading the mostly blind. The very fact that some 'new rumor' could pop up and derail years' worth of "consensus" is enough for me to never take any consensus seriously. The relevant example here is the "consensus" of using (as far as anyone knows) a completely fan-based hull designation system and adhering to it like it was gospel. Based on how rigidly and firmly people are holding on to this system, one would think it had already achieved semi-official status in PLA watching circles, when it fact its legitimacy remains entirely within the realm of the internet.

"it had already achieved semi-official status in PLA watching circles" and "its legitimacy remains entirely within the realm of the internet" are not mutually exclusive.

And yes, the fact that new rumours can pop up and derail years of previous consensus is why we need to appreciate that PLA watching is never really "set in stone". It's irritating but it's just how it is played, and the fruits of following rumours and consensus (and their overall track record) I think makes those minor irritations well worth it.

I'm not sure what you would normally describe as "solid support". What kind of solid support does conventional CATOBAR with an 80,000 ton displacement enjoy? As solid as internet rumours are?

Let's say, the same level of solid support as the "internet rumours" in 2014, which said that "001A construction will be visible in 2015" enjoyed.

BTW, you should note that you could replace "002" in this paragraph with "CV-18" and absolutely nothing would have changed about what you were saying.

I could have, but then in that case we are not respecting the original designations used on the Chinese boards and the big shrimps, and as a matter of consistency as well because most people should know what that designations stands for.

Straw man attacks should be beneath you, TBH. Please link and quote where I advocated to "reduce the discussion to only the simplest and most basic of aspects". Pretty please. Seriously.

I don't make straw man attacks -- if you feel like I've made a straw man attack it's more likely that my interpretation of your expressed position differs to what you believe.

In this case, I interpret your advocacy to discuss the carrier programme only in the scope of CV-XX numbers and not including the 00X designations and characteristics as reducing the discussion of the carrier programme to among the simplest and most basic of aspects.

Maybe we have differing interpretations of what "simplest and most basic of aspects" means for the carrier programme, but only talking about the future carriers on the basis of chronological CV-XX pennants without discussing their characteristics, to me fits that description.

If that is not what you mean then by all means feel free to clarify your position.

Please link and quote where I made a general attack that "people's differing interpretations of rumours and discussion" represents "fanboyism". Go ahead.

This part:

What you see as a benefit I see as unnecessary biased opinion. I also see these designations being used to push certain personally favored characteristics as a form of stolen authority. "Well clearly pop3/xyz/whatever shrimp used the term '002', so clearly this means that this carrier will have [fill in the blank]".

I interpret your "Well clearly pop3/xyz/whatever shrimp used the term '002', so clearly this means that this carrier will have [fill in the blank]" description as an obvious representation of fanboyish behaviour, and it mocks the process of critical discussion that is involved in reaching consensuses that we reach based on rumours.

Your previous mocking of the use of 001A and 002 designations (post #170) and your mocking of the idea that people will try to use "stolen authority" to push their own agenda based off credible rumours, is something which I think is reasonable to interpret is your position on the overall role of rumours and discussion-based-off-rumours, given that the 001A and 002 designations and the characteristics ascribed to them arose from the same rumour process that virtually all previous high ticket items began from (from J-20 to Y-20 to 052D, 055, 001A etc).
However, if you only mean that statement exclusive to the current 001A, 002 designation discussion then I will retract my statement at large, but in that case I cannot see how you can possibly separate your position on the 001A and 002 designation/characteristics issue versus the role of rumours in PLA discussion overall.

 

[Blitzo]

That's a reeeeeaaallly long winded explanation of saying we're right and he was wrong

LOL don't all discussions technically fit that bill one way or another?

 

[Jeff Head]

No, too simple -- in this regard I agree with Iron Man, that the 001, 002, 003 designations may not necessarily mean "same hull with same propulsion".

For example, what the second domestic carrier is a highly evolved hull of Liaoning and 001A?


At this stage we should use the information that the rumours have given us for describing what the 00X designations mean, and we should avoid using designations that big shrimps have yet to legitimize.

In other words, right now the only 00X designations in circulation should only be:
001A: STOBAR, a ship that is a modified Liaoning
002: CATOBAR, conventional powered, full displacement below or slightly above 80k tons

Anything else beyond that information, we simply do not know.

I agree with you...and that is in fact the way it has developed pretty much here on SD>

Now, people can do whatever they think is best.

We have been on this board for many years.

I think that the use of 001A, 002, and 003 have become fairly well understood here, just as you explain..

Liaoning, or 001 from that nomenclature, was refit by the Chinese but not built by them. It is one of the Kuznetsov class.

001A is clearly the Chinese version of this class built to their tastes and with whatever improvements they thought were prudent for getting a seocnd STOBAR carrier into the water.

So, I think that this nomenclature for this forum, while not at all an official Chinese designation, is well understood here, and has been fairly well understood elsewhere. IMHO Is goes like this:

001=CV-16, Liaoning, the refit former Varyag Kuznesov class carrier
001A=the Chinese indigenous build of the Kuznetsov class, which we believe will be CV-17
002=the first Chinese CATOBAR, conventionally powered carrier
003=the first Chinese CATOBAR nuclear powered carrier

Will there be two 002s? I think maybe there will. That does not necessarily at all mean that the second should be 002A. IMHO, unless it has some significant changes, it would be just the second 002 class.

Same with 003.

The Nimitz class, all ten of them, are part of the Nimitz class, even though there were some changes built into the carriers throughout the design cycle. Not enough to call it a new class.

Anyhow, that is how I personally see it.

Some may want to call the various members of the 002 class 002, 002A, 002B, etc. I think there will only be two so that there is nor real need for that,

Some feel there may only be one of those.

Time will tell.

But, I personally do not really understand making a big deal out of it one way or another.

We have just developed this way of looking at it over several years here on SD and I am perfectly comfortable with it and will continue to use it here...understanding full well that it may...or may not...develop into the actual pennant numbers, CV-17, CV-18, CV-19 and so forth.

Time will tell on that.

 

[Iron Man]

"it had already achieved semi-official status in PLA watching circles"

Actually to be perfectly honest this is a misstatement on my part. What I meant to say was "it had already achieved semi-official status in the PLAN itself", as in our use of it was actually representative of something tangible within the Chinese military rather than something netizens made up, which is what it actually represents.

In this case, I interpret your advocacy to discuss the carrier programme only in the scope of CV-XX numbers and not including the 00X designations and characteristics as reducing the discussion of the carrier programme to among the simplest and most basic of aspects.

Maybe we have differing interpretations of what "simplest and most basic of aspects" means for the carrier programme, but only talking about the future carriers on the basis of chronological CV-XX pennants without discussing their characteristics, to me fits that description.

If that is not what you mean then by all means feel free to clarify your position.

No need to clarify, since I have also already said this and something like this on multiple occasions:

"If you refer to future Chinese carriers by their hull numbers, you can be free to talk about whatever capability you think a given future hull will have without boxing yourself or someone else in by a purely hypothetical designator like "001B" or "002" or "002A"."

How could this in any way be interpreted as a desire on my part to "limit" discussion of the Chinese carrier program to the most basic of aspects???

I interpret your "Well clearly pop3/xyz/whatever shrimp used the term '002', so clearly this means that this carrier will have [fill in the blank]" description as an obvious representation of fanboyish behaviour, and it mocks the process of critical discussion that is involved in reaching consensuses that we reach based on rumours.

This particular instance of behavior IS fanboyishness. The intent here is to convey the tendency to attach extra 'preferences' to the already tenuous authority of a big shrimp so that whatever you want to be the truth is given an air of authority because it is represented as also having fallen from the lips of said shrimp, even though the original term used was much less 'descriptive'.

Your previous mocking of the use of 001A and 002 designations (post #170) and your mocking of the idea that people will try to use "stolen authority" to push their own agenda based off credible rumours, is something which I think is reasonable to interpret is your position on the overall role of rumours and discussion-based-off-rumours, given that the 001A and 002 designations and the characteristics ascribed to them arose from the same rumour process that virtually all previous high ticket items began from (from J-20 to Y-20 to 052D, 055, 001A etc).
However, if you only mean that statement exclusive to the current 001A, 002 designation discussion then I will retract my statement at large, but in that case I cannot see how you can possibly separate your position on the 001A and 002 designation/characteristics issue versus the role of rumours in PLA discussion overall.

I can hardly see why it is so hard for you see the difference. When it came to the J-20, people were talking about its existence, its date of appearance, and various physical characteristics, based on insider knowledge. With the carrier program, you are speculating on not merely physical characteristics, but on class designations that have never been confirmed by the PLAN itself in all these years, yet you hold on to them with the same level of authority which you gave to the rumors of the existence of the J-20 itself. I ask again, has pop3 (or whoever) ever explicitly stated that he believes these are legitimate internal designations actually in active use by the PLAN itself, or whether these are just convenient terms that he personally preferred to use initially? If the latter, it is easy to see how they could have taken a life of their own in the absence of tangible designators and become standard in the PLA watching community for lack of anything better. Lack of anything better =/= reality.

 

[Intrepid]

No, too simple -- in this regard I agree with Iron Man, that the 001, 002, 003 designations may not necessarily mean "same hull with same propulsion".

They mean different hulls.

For example, what the second domestic carrier is a highly evolved hull of Liaoning and 001A?

Then it will be a second 001A (STOBAR) or 001B (CATOBAR on a Liaoning hull). But we all expect it as a different hull than Liaoning, so we call it 002.

It is a simple system.

 

[Blitzo]

Actually to be perfectly honest this is a misstatement on my part. What I meant to say was "it had already achieved semi-official status in the PLAN itself", as in our use of it was actually representative of something tangible within the Chinese military rather than something netizens made up, which is what it actually represents.

Okay, I want to state first of all that the designation of 001A and 002 is not something which I believe is necessarily official to the Chinese Navy. It might be, it might not be -- I really don't care. They might merely be shorthand designations that have been used, to encapsulate the rumoured characteristics that have been assigned to them over the years.
I also do not think many other people here if you asked them explicitly would think that 001A or 002 are official Chinese Navy designations either.

For me, the discussion about the 001A/002 designation surrounds the characteristics they are meant to encompass, and not the literal official status of the designation themselves.

No need to clarify, since I have also already said this and something like this on multiple occasions:

"If you refer to future Chinese carriers by their hull numbers, you can be free to talk about whatever capability you think a given future hull will have without boxing yourself or someone else in by a purely hypothetical designator like "001B" or "002" or "002A"."

How could this in any way be interpreted as a desire on my part to "limit" discussion of the Chinese carrier program to the most basic of aspects???

Because by ignoring the designations like 001A or 002, you will remove much of the basis for characteristics of those designations in the first place. In other words, I interpret the idea of "it could be anything" is similar to saying "all the previous rumours about the characteristics assigned to each respective designation are not credible".

But if that's not what you mean then I'm willing to drop this point.

This particular instance of behavior IS fanboyishness. The intent here is to convey the tendency to attach extra 'preferences' to the already tenuous authority of a big shrimp so that whatever you want to be the truth is given an air of authority because it is represented as also having fallen from the lips of said shrimp, even though the original term used was much less 'descriptive'.

Okay, and in that case one can simply point them in the right directions of what said shrimps actually said.

The nature of big shrimps and navigating the Chinese boards means we cannot always find the exact post from two or three years ago or whenever when they said something, so that also means we need to rely on members who were able to spot those original posts at the time, and then to rely on the accumulative community memory.

That means we need a degree of trust between members and sensible critical thinking to separate untrustworthy individuals and statements from trustworthy ones.

This does also mean there is the opportunity for fanboyism to drive things off track, but others can step in to put it back on track. So I do not see the risk of fanboyism is far from enough to disqualify either the use of 001A/002 designations/characteristics for the sake of discussion.

And as a personal anecdote; over my years on this forum and other forums, I have encountered few, if any instances of individuals trying to knowingly misconstrue the statements of big shrimps to advance their own personal beliefs of what a project may or may not be like... there have been cases of miscommunication or false positives or even incorrect interpretation of vague statements, but that is quite different to what you're suggesting.

I can hardly see why it is so hard for you see the difference. When it came to the J-20, people were talking about its existence, its date of appearance, and various physical characteristics, based on insider knowledge. With the carrier program, you are speculating on not merely physical characteristics, but on class designations that have never been confirmed by the PLAN itself in all these years, yet you hold on to them with the same level of authority which you gave to the rumors of the existence of the J-20 itself. I ask again, has pop3 (or whoever) ever explicitly stated that he believes these are legitimate internal designations actually in active use by the PLAN itself, or whether these are just convenient terms that he personally preferred to use initially? If the latter, it is easy to see how they could have taken a life of their own in the absence of tangible designators and become standard in the PLA watching community for lack of anything better. Lack of anything better =/= reality.

Again, I want to repeat I do not believe that the 001A or 002 designations are necessarily "official designations" at all. That is not my position, and my position is about the characteristics those designations are meant to represent.

As for J-20 and other projects (Y-20, 052D, 055, 001A that I also mentioned) -- I am talking about the characteristics rumoured for each of those projects, in the years prior to unveiling. These characteristics include the basic physical parameters, to when construction may have begun to when it may be first seen etc.

The above characteristics for a variety of different projects have all arisen through the same process of initial mere "internet rumours". How do you know that J-20 (J-XX back then), was based off insider sources and that 002 knowledge is not? Same question for Y-20 or 052D or 055 rumours or 001A rumours prior to their respective unveilings as well.