Chinese Engine Development

[broadsword]

I think this whole time you have misunderstood what I was trying to argue. This is the last time I will say this: Your example show that state-affiliated media can be critical, yes, but I never argued that it couldn't be. One example of a state-affiliated source being critical is not evidence against my claim that state media has the incentivize to produce more laudatory reports. You are making a logical leap here. Please think about it some more if you care to but I am simply not interested in debating this particular point any longer.

So you meant one swallow does not make summer. You need to see more criticism. Am I right?

If we assume that the audience already knows about the history of WS10, then that interview is fine. If we assume that the audience is not familiar with WS10, then it makes sense to give a brief history of the engine and its protracted development. In fact, that would make the cited breakthroughs seem more meaningful.

I think it has to do more with CCTV's production and programming. Engine development also tends to be a lot more secretive than the CRH trains.

The secrecy is not just a China thing. In other countries with authoritarian governments, glc defence companies also enjoy the secrecy. It is a good thing as they do not want their products development to be compromised by leaks and media outcry. Unless deaths happen, but that is when it is no longer possible to hide. It is not like they are conducting tests on the unsuspecting public as the US did.

Also, when they are behind the tech leaders, they need all the positive feedback they can get, like a child undergoing development.

For example, the Sina.com articles

Disregard Sina.com articles, as Monty also advised. They lump truth with fiction and you don't know which is which. I quoted them once and I was laughed at.

 

[stibyssip]

One could very well make a strong and sensible argument that if China truly were interested in doign what you described ("producing a perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is"), then China would be incentivized to exaggerate their military capabilites and do early reveals of new weapons in development in stages similar to what western military forces.

Instead, big ticket projects like fighters, destroyers, carriers, new missiles, radars etc, are virtually almost never officially reported on during their development period by state media in any sort of organic sense, but instead only convyed in a speculative sense by "non-official" experts at most where they give the impression that their words are as speculative as anyone else's.

One only needs to look at how open and brazen the procurement and development of new capabilities in western military forces are to see how utterly careful, subdued and controlled China is in releasing hard information about their own capabilities.
E.g.: the development milestones of the likes of F-22, F-35 were followed step by step by media and with USAF press releases virtually from the inception of announcing the winner of ATF and JSF. Contrast that to J-20, where the Air Force has only really officially declassified the J-20 this year at Zhuhai, despite the aircraft making its first flight five years ago and the programme beginning years ago before that.

One can use similar comparisons for basically every equivalent weapons system between China and the US and how closed and restrained China is vs how open the US is. Carriers, SSNs, SSBNs, fighters, bombers, destroyers, radars, missiles... virtually everything.

I think it's always gonna be a balance between maintaining an optimal level of secrecy for security reasons and selling up the deterrence value/marketability of one's gear. Exactly where to put the pivot point is dependent on various factors, like the country's military capabilities relative to potential rivals and the country's geopolitical relationships.

For technologically backward countries like North Korea, their gear is vastly outdated and outclassed so they sell it way up while being very secretive. This means that while enemies will have a tough time figuring out exactly how capable they are, and the big upsell means that enemies will possibly assume they are more advanced than they are and be deterred from attacking them while domestic citizens are reassured of the country's strength.

For advanced countries like the US, their gear is the best so it makes sense to show off openly what they have, because they are not afraid of revealing possible deficiencies others can take advantage of when it comes to gear. Likewise, this works in favour of their military deterrence as well as their export attractiveness.

Just think about the evolution of China's foreign strategy over the years:

Mao Years: Antagonistic relationship with world powers, materially backwards, thus highly secretive yet gung-ho attitude (like North Korea).

Deng Years: Warm relationship with world powers but harboring private ambitions, materially backwards, thus less secretive and a reserved, quiet attitude (Deng's 'Hide and Bide' strategy).

China Now: Competitive relationship with world powers, materially catching up, thus...

China is more advanced now but still lags behind the West in terms of gear and capabilities. Like before, it doesn't want the West to know just how advanced it is (just how much it lags behind), but with tensions bubbling over a number of flashpoints where it is pushing against the US dominant regional security order, it also needs to show itself as possessing a credible military deterrence. This is a partial departure from the Deng strategy you seem to promote. This is also why over the last 10 or so years, we have seen complementary rises in China's geopolitical assertiveness as well as the quality of its gear and the publicity around said gear.

...I do not perceive the effect of this sort of overall portrayal to be one of trying to create a "perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is" nor even trying to create a perception that the Chinese military's capability is more advanced than it is.

Instead, I see those portrayals more for domestic consumption with the purpose of effectively being a way of conveying that they are continuing to seek and improve, train and develop their military capabilities but all while revealing very little about the details of how they are going about that improvement so as to preserve operational security against potential foes, and they also tend to disclose very little about the actual effectiveness of their capabilities either.
What it creates is not a perception of having high levels of capability, but rather a perception that they are continuously trying to strive for improvement of capability.

Displaying that one "has" high levels of capability would be to show off the highest end capabilities that they have by revealing sufficient amounts of information about new capabilities or capabilities under development to create a sense of deterrence. Things like reporting on J-20 testing development, reporting on rough capabilities of new AEW&C and ASW MPA and EW/ECM aircraft, reporting the rough capability of sensors suite and weapons suite of new fighters or destroyers or ships, etc. But instead, these things are virtually never given to us, or even acknowledged during the development process by any form of official state media or official military media.
OTOH, I believe Chinese state/military media is displaying that they are "striving" for improvement of capability. That allows them to simply show off far less strategic, less sensitive and arguably less important assets and training and capabilities -- whether it's artillery exercises or simple naval exercises or vague depictions of aerial exercises -- and the amount of useful information that is revealed by this is far more limited. The effect of this kind of portrayal does not effect the perception of their military capabilities very much in most circumstances, but instead merely conveys that the military's "character" of determination to continue and improve and develop.

In a way, what I'm describing is still a form of PR or propaganda, but I see their portrayal as one of the military's spirit/character to improve and develop, which is vastly different to what you are describing which is that they are trying to exaggerate their capabilities or industry to a certain level of effectiveness or advancement.
This difference is small, but not trivial at all IMO.

I remain suspect of such clean divisions between what you see as "having high levels of capability" and "striving for improvements in capability." I think this division is contrived and that the reality is far more ambiguous. Getting down to brass tacks, the Chinese state media makes PR about its military and military gear. Being PR, it does not present a fully objective picture of the real state of affairs, i.e. the PR content, usually being vague, is always optimistic in its conclusions. Now does an optimistic bias on Chinese military capabilities not benefit the interests of the Chinese state? Short of revealing sensitive information, I think it certainly does.

 

[taxiya]

I never made the assertion that the Chinese government hides the developmental status of WS10 because I know that no government will be entirely transparent with status of high priority strategic projects. My "assertion" was listing 3 ways in which the Chinese government HAS INCENTIVE to promote a biased stance on WS10 and I stand by them. I explained in the best logic I could why the report you cited did not refute my claim, and you saying it does will not make it so.

Let's try to understand exactly what we are arguing against instead of arguing for the sake of winning arguments.

I was trying to stay away from this topic until I read this post of yours.

If I understand you correctly, the core of your argument is the incentive of Chinese government. In other words, you are trying to assert somebody's mind? I don't think that is a meaningful subject to start an argument in the first place. If you use incentive(intention, beneficiary) to support your assertion of the good or bad of a physical object, you start on the wrong foot. It is akin to a prosecutor trying to nail a guilty verdict based only on the assumption that the accused may benefit from the criminal act, without any evidence. Firstly, nobody really knows what is in other people's mind. Secondly, everybody has incentive or can benefit from certain act.

 

[Blitzo]

I think it's always gonna be a balance between maintaining an optimal level of secrecy for security reasons and selling up the deterrence value/marketability of one's gear. Exactly where to put the pivot point is dependent on various factors, like the country's military capabilities relative to potential rivals and the country's geopolitical relationships.

For technologically backward countries like North Korea, their gear is vastly outdated and outclassed so they sell it way up while being very secretive. This means that while enemies will have a tough time figuring out exactly how capable they are, and the big upsell means that enemies will possibly assume they are more advanced than they are and be deterred from attacking them while domestic citizens are reassured of the country's strength.

For advanced countries like the US, their gear is the best so it makes sense to show off openly what they have, because they are not afraid of revealing possible deficiencies others can take advantage of when it comes to gear. Likewise, this works in favour of their military deterrence as well as their export attractiveness.

Just think about the evolution of China's foreign strategy over the years:

Mao Years: Antagonistic relationship with world powers, materially backwards, thus highly secretive yet gung-ho attitude (like North Korea).

Deng Years: Warm relationship with world powers but harboring private ambitions, materially backwards, thus less secretive and a reserved, quiet attitude (Deng's 'Hide and Bide' strategy).

China Now: Competitive relationship with world powers, materially catching up, thus...

China is more advanced now but still lags behind the West in terms of gear and capabilities. Like before, it doesn't want the West to know just how advanced it is (just how much it lags behind), but with tensions bubbling over a number of flashpoints where it is pushing against the US dominant regional security order, it also needs to show itself as possessing a credible military deterrence. This is a partial departure from the Deng strategy you seem to promote. This is also why over the last 10 or so years, we have seen complementary rises in China's geopolitical assertiveness as well as the quality of its gear and the publicity around said gear.

I do not believe the publicity and portrayal by state media of their equipment has increased in any major way over the last ten years -- the degree of relative publicity has remained the same, it is just that they have improved their capability so much that the same degree of publicity makes it

I also do not believe that the state media's portrayal of the military fulfills your original quote of trying to "perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is" or that they are trying to create the perception that the Chinese military is more capable than it is.

I remain suspect of such clean divisions between what you see as "having high levels of capability" and "striving for improvements in capability." I think this division is contrived and that the reality is far more ambiguous. Getting down to brass tacks, the Chinese state media makes PR about its military and military gear. Being PR, it does not present a fully objective picture of the real state of affairs, i.e. the PR content, usually being vague, is always optimistic in its conclusions. Now does an optimistic bias on Chinese military capabilities not benefit the interests of the Chinese state? Short of revealing sensitive information, I think it certainly does.

I acknowledge that there is not a clean division between "having high levels of capability" and "striving for improvements in capability".

I would also agree that the portrayal of the military is generally to portray it in an optimistic way, or at least to portray the military's development in a broadly positive way.

BUT, I hope you realize why "portraying the military in an optimistic way" is quite different to what you originally claimed i.e.: creating the "perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is" or creating the perception that the Chinese military is more capable than it is.

To portray one's military in an optimistic way does not mean one has to reveal the true advancement of one's military industry nor does it mean one has to reveal the true extent of one's capability -- and it definitely doesn't mean one needs to exaggerate their level of advancement or exaggerate their true capability.

Given we are all experienced PLA watchers here, we imagine we are all acutely aware of just how little we know about the most advanced capabilities and assets that they deploy which we have little to no information about which any normal western military or even military in Russia or India would have openly disclosed. I'm not even talking about WMDs or strategic weapons like ballistic missiles, but simply conventional weapons (like fighters, ships, AEW&C, AFVs, even small arms!) and basic information about their development, testing, fielding statuses.
So that is why I am saying Chinese state media is doing the complete opposite of what you're saying -- overall, they are deliberately creating the perception that the Chinese military industry is less advanced than it is, and creating the perception that the Chinese military is less capable than it is. And they are doing that by withholding information about the status of a variety of weapons, technologies and even basic information like order of battle, and even often not organically acknowledging the existence of a new weapon until it has been deployed.


That is why I find the idea that the Chinese state media are seeking to create the "perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is" or create the perception that the Chinese military is more capable than it is to be absolutely preposterous.
I will fully agree that Chinese state media generally seeks to create a positive portrayal or depiction of the military and their progress -- and that positive depiction of course does benefit China as a state as it allows them to conduct PR and news outreach to the public, resulting in a positive public confidence to the military, especially by the vast majority of the public who are very unaware of just how little information and how little true capability the state media depictions actually reveal.
BUT state media most definitely are not trying to create any sort of exaggerated or even accurate depiction of the state of the domestic military industry or the military's actual level of capability, and in fact they are doing the complete opposite.

edit:
I think the biggest problem I have with your original statement is this part (bolded): trying to "perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is," or that they are trying to create the perception that the Chinese military is more capable than it is.

Because saying "more XYZ than it is" means that their depiction of either military industry or military capability is an exaggerated portrayal of the reality. As I've repeatedly demonstrated above, we obviously all know that this isn't true because the Chinese military actively withholds a variety of very basic information about their deployed weapons and have very high opsec for weapons under development, to such a high degree which is quite different to other equivalent weapons of foreign military forces.

If you said that they are trying to create "the perception that Chinese military industry is advanced" then I would partly agree with you. Or even more accurate if you said that they are trying to create "the perception that Chinese military industry is advanced without revealing just how advanced they really are" then I would fully agree with that statement.
(and same goes for Chinese military capability too -- i.e.: creating the perception that the Chinese military is capable without revealing just how capable they really are)

 

[superdog]

Haven't read this thread for a week or two, today I flip through the pages to see what I've missed, and I see pages and pages of arguments around anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, and appealing to motive.

So, I missed nothing.

 

[Blitzo]

Haven't read this thread for a week or two, today I flip through the pages to see what I've missed, and I see pages and pages of arguments around anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias, and appealing to motive.

So, I missed nothing.

Among all of the more active threads, this one is probably among the lowest in terms of quality per page.

Engines has the dubious honour of being an area where we not only have limited information and limited new information for, but the topic is also both an area of cynical attack and sensitive defensiveness by the two respective sides.
There's really no way to regulate this without having a mod watch the thread with a sharp eye and always shut down any and all inflammatory and off topic posts.

 

[stibyssip]

I was trying to stay away from this topic until I read this post of yours.

If I understand you correctly, the core of your argument is the incentive of Chinese government. In other words, you are trying to assert somebody's mind? I don't think that is a meaningful subject to start an argument in the first place. If you use incentive(intention, beneficiary) to support your assertion of the good or bad of a physical object, you start on the wrong foot. It is akin to a prosecutor trying to nail a guilty verdict based only on the assumption that the accused may benefit from the criminal act, without any evidence. Firstly, nobody really knows what is in other people's mind. Secondly, everybody has incentive or can benefit from certain act.

We can't be absolutely certain what's in others' minds but it's possible to be reasonably certain with the right evidence. If mental states between individuals were totally relativistic and subjective, there would be no such thing as communication. Both intent and motive are extremely relevant in criminal law, and motive are cited alongside physical evidence in litigation. The point is that given relevant knowledge about circumstances surrounding an event, it is possible to figure out who has strong incentives, who has weak ones, and who has disincentives.

The reason I said anything in the first place was to suggest why it's not out of line to doubt the objectivity of a report about how a project is performing when the report comes from a party with direct interests in the project. This is why organizational design pay attention to concepts like moral hazard, this is why things like external auditors exist for financial institutions.

 

[stibyssip]

Given we are all experienced PLA watchers here, we imagine we are all acutely aware of just how little we know about the most advanced capabilities and assets that they deploy which we have little to no information about which any normal western military or even military in Russia or India would have openly disclosed. I'm not even talking about WMDs or strategic weapons like ballistic missiles, but simply conventional weapons (like fighters, ships, AEW&C, AFVs, even small arms!) and basic information about their development, testing, fielding statuses.
So that is why I am saying Chinese state media is doing the complete opposite of what you're saying -- overall, they are deliberately creating the perception that the Chinese military industry is less advanced than it is, and creating the perception that the Chinese military is less capable than it is. And they are doing that by withholding information about the status of a variety of weapons, technologies and even basic information like order of battle, and even often not organically acknowledging the existence of a new weapon until it has been deployed.

I disagree with your assessment that the Chinese deliberately project their capabilities as less capable than reality. Like you say, there's no surplus of info about the extent of their capabilities.

...That is why I find the idea that the Chinese state media are seeking to create the "perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is" or create the perception that the Chinese military is more capable than it is to be absolutely preposterous.
I will fully agree that Chinese state media generally seeks to create a positive portrayal or depiction of the military and their progress -- and that positive depiction of course does benefit China as a state as it allows them to conduct PR and news outreach to the public, resulting in a positive public confidence to the military, especially by the vast majority of the public who are very unaware of just how little information and how little true capability the state media depictions actually reveal.
BUT state media most definitely are not trying to create any sort of exaggerated or even accurate depiction of the state of the domestic military industry or the military's actual level of capability, and in fact they are doing the complete opposite.

edit:
I think the biggest problem I have with your original statement is this part (bolded): trying to "perception that Chinese military industry is more advanced than it is," or that they are trying to create the perception that the Chinese military is more capable than it is.

I think much of our disagreement is on the strength of particular phrasings used to describe states of affairs. How much difference is there between projecting an optimistic bias versus creating a perception of higher capability than fact? Anyways, I don't think the difference is big enough to warrant as much debate as we have put into it. Overall it has been interesting to compare views with you on the subject to such a high degree of nuance, though at the cost of relevance to the thread topic :/

 

[Blitzo]

I disagree with your assessment that the Chinese deliberately project their capabilities as less capable than reality. Like you say, there's no surplus of info about the extent of their capabilities.

Umm.

I honestly don't know how you could suggest that is not the case.

Considering the vast vrange of new weapons and capabilities that we know are under advanced stages of development, induction, and operation, the fact that those weapons and capabilities are not at the very least openly acknowledged to us (not to mention all the past historical examples of this in the last few decades), is something which I consider to be a vast and undeniable body of proof that I thought everyone was aware of and accepted.

I think much of our disagreement is on the strength of particular phrasings used to describe states of affairs. How much difference is there between projecting an optimistic bias versus creating a perception of higher capability than fact? Anyways, I don't think the difference is big enough to warrant as much debate as we have put into it. Overall it has been interesting to compare views with you on the subject to such a high degree of nuance, though at the cost of relevance to the thread topic :/

I'm willing to end the discussion here due to impasse.

However, for me, the suggestion that the Chinese state media is seeking to exaggerate the advancement of their military industry or the extent of their military capability, is fundamentally opposed to one of the key cornerstones of what I consider to be competent and logical PLA watching -- that the Chinese military deliberately seeks to conceal the true advancement of their military industry and that they deliberately seek to conceal the true extent of their military capability.
Honestly, I'm surprised that you have not noticed it -- this is one of the earliest things I think any PLA watcher picks up on after a few years of simple observation.

As for being optimistic about one's military capability vs exaggerating one's military capability -- it is the difference between feeling good about one's own performance in a race regardless of where you placed, versus boasting that one had come earlier in a race when in reality they had come later. I consider there to be a yawning chasm between the two options in the context of our discussion, especially given the Chinese military's overall modus operandi of concealing the extent of their military industry advancement and concealing the extent of their military capability.

 

[stibyssip]

Really wanted to be done on this topic, but your last comment raises some misgivings.

Considering the vast vrange of new weapons and capabilities that we know are under advanced stages of development, induction, and operation, the fact that those weapons and capabilities are not at the very least openly acknowledged to us (not to mention all the past historical examples of this in the last few decades), is something which I consider to be a vast and undeniable body of proof that I thought everyone was aware of and accepted.

Direct reporting on military developments by state media bears optimistic bias but is mostly just vague. But I'm sure you are aware of the vast quantity of gleefully optimistic speculation on Chinese military capabilities and gear on Chinese TV and internet. I know much of this is, semi-official, and some is unoffical, but given the media management system in China, the state obviously tolerates and even coopts this to some degree.

I concede this does not amount to waterproof evidence that the Chinese state is deliberately involved in upselling military capabilities, but to look at all this and then to declare that the primary modus operandi of China's state media strategy is to understate and lowball military capabilities, and to additionally say that this conclusion is undeniable and accepted by all, seems absurd. You are however entitled to your opinion.

...fundamentally opposed to one of the key cornerstones of what I consider to be competent and logical PLA watching -- that the Chinese military deliberately seeks to conceal the true advancement of their military industry and that they deliberately seek to conceal the true extent of their military capability.
Honestly, I'm surprised that you have not noticed it -- this is one of the earliest things I think any PLA watcher picks up on after a few years of simple observation.

Sure why not