Chinese Engine Development

[Blitzo]

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


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.

But we have only been talking about official state media/official military media only, which was the original format of media in the discussion you raised. (not explicitly mentioned in your original post where you list the 3 points, but considering the vein of the discussion that followed your post I assume that this is the format of media that everyone is concerned about, also post 4073 where you do explicitly mention state affiliated sources which I interpret to mean state media/official military media)

In state media/official military media, I think my description of their opsec and their way of portraying military industry and military capability is quite accurate.

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.

Considering the original topic was about official Chinese state media (and I gather, official military media), I think my conclusion is entirely reasonable.
If it was to include how the Chinese military selectively sometimes allows leaks and releases of new developments through less official internet channels then that would be a whole other topic, and this topic becomes slightly more complex.

But again, I think this statement in my last post is quite correct, considering we have only talking about official media this entire time: "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".

Sure why not

Do you disagree with that?

 

[Engineer]

@Engineer, I find issues with the logic you use in your first post, but in the interest of moving forward let's talk about something more interesting.

My logic is sound.

I am familiar with Deng Xiaoping's 'hide and bide' strategy. It was highly relevant at a time when the country had big ambitions but grossly inadequate military capabilities for power projection. Since the 1980s, China's military parity gap with the West has shrank considerably. Likewise, China has literally been 'testing the waters' by backing up territorial claims in the SCS with force and to the clear chagrin of the US. This seems to signal a revision of the strategic policy of the past. It is strategically advantageous for every country to hide its full military capabilities to some extent, but China today clearly has something to gain from bearing its teeth and showing off its firepower occasionally. Just think about the appearance at Zhuhai of not one but two J20s, and the WS-15 isn't even ready.

First, China didn't back up territorial claims with force, so there is no such signal of reversal in strategic policy that you spoke of. Secondly, having something to gain by showing off isn't a proof to your accusation that a printed article is inflating Chinese military capability.

Your continuation on the off-topic subject of media bias is a clear sign that you have nothing to contribute in relation to the discussion about Chinese engine development. You should stop with the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

 

[stibyssip]

My logic is sound.

If you say so

First, China didn't back up territorial claims with force, so there is no such signal of reversal in strategic policy that you spoke of.

I never said reversal, I said shift. And if you don't acknowledge that Chinese strategic policy in the South China Sea has shifted toward increased military/political assertiveness as of late, then I don't know what planet you're living on.

Secondly, having something to gain by showing off isn't a proof to your accusation that a printed article is inflating Chinese military capability.

If an article exhibits a positive bias on military capability, then it sells up those capabilities. Having something to gain from selling up capabilities and having power over reporting means that you are more likely to release reports that sell up those capabilities. That's the definition of incentive. I never said any of my claims were absolute. You are trying to paint it that way because it makes my arguments seem more unreasonable.

Your continuation on the off-topic subject of media bias is a clear sign that you have nothing to contribute in relation to the discussion about Chinese engine development. You should stop with the

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

.

It's only a red herring if you cite premises to support a conclusion those premises don't actually have anything to do with. Since the point of my argument was never to promote a conclusion about engine development, how can I have made a red herring fallacy? It doesn't seem like you've grasped the meaning of the concept very well.
I don't have fresh insights to bring to the table about engine dev, which is why I've been talking about media as a tangent to engine dev. Why don't YOU talk about engine dev if you're gonna give me flack for OT?

 

[Engineer]

If you say so

I know so.

I never said reversal, I said shift. And if you don't acknowledge that Chinese strategic policy in the South China Sea has shifted toward increased military/political assertiveness as of late, then I don't know what planet you're living on.

Chinese policy in South China Sea has been consistent over the years. In any case, Chinese policy in South China Sea is irrelevant to Chinese engine development.

If an article exhibits a positive bias on military capability, then it sells up those capabilities. Having something to gain from selling up capabilities and having power over reporting means that you are more likely to release reports that sell up those capabilities. That's the definition of incentive. I never said any of my claims were absolute. You are trying to paint it that way because it makes my arguments seem more unreasonable.

Having something to gain isn't the same as acting upon it. Everybody has something to gain through theft, that does not mean everybody is a thief. The burden of proof lies on you to show the content of the article is inaccurate. So far, all you have been doing is throw more red herrings around and cop out on providing proofs.

It's only a red herring if you cite premises to support a conclusion those premises don't actually have anything to do with. Since the point of my argument was never to promote a conclusion about engine development, how can I have made a red herring fallacy? It doesn't seem like you've grasped the meaning of the concept very well.
I don't have fresh insights to bring to the table about engine dev, which is why I've been talking about media as a tangent to engine dev. Why don't YOU talk about engine dev if you're gonna give me flack for OT?

The bold part is exactly what you have been doing. You tried to defend certain member's claim that the article's report of WS-10 status is inaccurate. Instead of providing reasonable premises, you continued on his same ad hominem fallacy and go on-and-on about media bias. Your points about showing off J-20 and China's policy in South China Sea have no relation to the original claim, thus are red herring.

 

[Pmichael]

Isn't it pretty simple?

We know exactly when the Air Force is happy with the engines when they stop putting Russian engines on their aircraft.

 

[Blackstone]

Isn't it pretty simple?

We know exactly when the Air Force is happy with the engines when they stop putting Russian engines on their aircraft.

Exactly so! Glad to see some rational posters on the topic.

 

[taxiya]

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.

What you are saying are all right regarding communication and public relationship. And I do not object that. But it is all irrelevant.

It is out of place in discussion of characteristics of a physical object, that is here the engine. Just like what I have pointed out in a law suit. Incentive is irrelevant and will not be admitted as evidence for a verdict.

 

[stibyssip]

Having something to gain isn't the same as acting upon it. Everybody has something to gain through theft, that does not mean everybody is a thief. The burden of proof lies on you to show the content of the article is inaccurate. So far, all you have been doing is throw more red herrings around and cop out on providing proofs.

Ya and when there are cops around you have disincentives toward theft. When you have a direct interest in something you have more incentive to talk it up than if you don't have a direct interest in something. There is no argument here unless you are trying to argue on purpose. Also I never talked in terms of absolutes this entire debate, only likelihood. Many people arguing against me, like yourself, have demanded I 'prove' a certain claim, whereas I never claimed the ability to prove anything. I only ask you to use your brains and realize what a reasonable inference looks like. That's it.

The bold part is exactly what you have been doing. You tried to defend certain member's claim that the article's report of WS-10 status is inaccurate. Instead of providing reasonable premises, you continued on his same ad hominem fallacy and go on-and-on about media bias. Your points about showing off J-20 and China's policy in South China Sea have no relation to the original claim, thus are red herring.

You are the one making a fallacious argument here because you are acting like I've been arguing a specific claim about the WS10 while my whole argument has simply been about why Blackstone's skepticism is not entirely unjustified and didn't deserve the amount of antagonism he got. And what I've received has been small bit of rational debate and a whole heaping pile of straw men + ill conceived accusations of fallacy.

Since it doesn't seem like you understand how to assess fallacy, nor are you capable of reasonably considering views that differ from your own, I see no point in arguing with you on this any longer.

 

[Hendrik_2000]

Isn't it pretty simple?

We know exactly when the Air Force is happy with the engines when they stop putting Russian engines on their aircraft.

Well they have to use the existing stock. But sofar there is NO new order of AL31 engine!
Yet we keep seeing new J16 fitted with ws10a engine!

 

[stibyssip]

What you are saying are all right regarding communication and public relationship. And I do not object that. But it is all irrelevant.

Everything I said there was directly in response to the claims in one of your posts.

It is out of place in discussion of characteristics of a physical object, that is here the engine. Just like what I have pointed out in a law suit. Incentive is irrelevant and will not be admitted as evidence for a verdict.

The debate I've been engaging in is about why it's not unreasonable to expect state media to upsell the WS10. I've supported my views by citing aspects of the incentive/agency structure behind media in China, and explaining where there is high potential for conflict between objectivity and interest. Nowhere was I trying to convince anyone of any original, contentious viewpoint about WS10 specifically. Hope that clears things up.