PLAN 2nd & 3rd Aircraft Carrier wager & planning

PanAsian · Jul 27, 2016

dingyibvs said:
6 obviously is a pipe dream, but 3 is almost a given IMO given there'll be 2 launched within a year. You don't think China can launch another within 8 more years?

Not that China can't but that I think China's naval needs are better met by platforms other than carriers. More and better CG/DDG/FFGs, SSK/Ns, even adding LHDs, Y-20s, H-6s, and their fighter escorts make more sense in terms of strategy and mission. It also makes sense for them to continue R&D in their carrier program but not necessarily expand their carrier fleet within this timeframe, or only as a response to a relevant arms race. The emphasis on improving cost and combat effectiveness in recent PLA reform rhetoric lends weight to this line of thought.

Bltizo said:
Define "have"?
The bet we have going is that if a 3rd carrier starts building before 2020 then you lose the bet... so if said 3rd carrier does begin construction before 2020 it is possible it may be undergoing sea trials by 2025 if not have just entered service by then -- and I'm not sure what of those potential projections would qualify as "have".

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/plan-2nd-3rd-aircraft-carrier-wager-planning.t7361/

The wager is the wager which I'm not expecting to change though the terms are very generous towards the more carriers side of the bet compared to the original conversation.

In the context of the post you are responding to I mean "have" as in "in service".

Blitzo · Jul 27, 2016

PanAsian said:
The wager is the wager which I'm not expecting to change though the terms are very generous towards the more carriers side of the bet compared to the original conversation.

In the context of the post you are responding to I mean "have" as in "in service".

I see. Out of interest, what do you think would have been fairer terms if the current ones aren't to your liking?

PanAsian · Jul 27, 2016

Bltizo said:
I see. Out of interest, what do you think would have been fairer terms if the current ones aren't to your liking?

It's been a long time but it's about whether the wager reflects the original debate which led to it. If I remember correctly, or if anyone cares to look it up, the original debate spread over multiple threads was whether a 3rd carrier would be in service by 2020 but it became begin building by 2020 for the wager.

Blitzo · Jul 27, 2016

PanAsian said:
It's been a long time but it's about whether the wager reflects the original debate which led to it. If I remember correctly, or if anyone cares to look it up, the original debate spread over multiple threads was whether a 3rd carrier would be in service by 2020 but it became begin building by 2020 for the wager.

I'm not sure who in the original debate would have argued that a third carrier would be in service by 2020, because I definitely would not have taken up the wager if those were the terms.

The roots of the wager was in Jeff's 2015 update thread.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-2#post-345729

If we go through that thread, I think the original discussion about how many carriers the Navy would have in coming years was started by one of your posts:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-2#post-345729

Then you later clarified your position in an initial wager format:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-4#post-345944
The point which was under contention, and the reason for the wager -- directly quoted from you -- was: "I may still be correct that they won't have more than a pair of carriers at sea within a decade and I may still be correct about the priority/pace of their carrier program."

Of course I then immediately replied and laid out my position which can be read in full:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-4#post-345947

Then you later succinctly summed up your position later: "What I am predicting is no more than 2 carriers in the water by 2025."
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-6#post-346067
... and that is how we reached the terms of construction which Jeff proposed, here (which you accepted): https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-6#post-346069

So overall I can't see how you could argue the wager was "generous" towards the more carriers side, because I don't think many if any people in that original thread argued that we'd have three carriers in service by 2020, and from what I can see you never mentioned three carriers in service by 2020 either, and your position was that they'd only have two carriers "at sea" or "in the water" by 2025.

====

just for lulz, I'd like to bring up my own prediction from that thread:
"My personal belief: I don't think we'll get evidence of 002 within 2015, however I do think we'll get evidence of 001A within 2015, and significantly clearer evidence by the end of 2016 at the latest (given the modules at DL's drydock probably won't look like a carrier hull for a while). We'll probably get first evidence of 002 a few years after 2015, maybe 2017 at the earliest. I'd expect three carriers commissioned by 2030 (or at least two commissioned and the third on the cusp of commissioning) and with evidence of a second hull from DL and a second hull from JN as well, assuming there are no substantial changes to the economic climate."

And it turns out we did get evidence of 001A in 2015 (in mid to late April, to be precise, when we first had pics of the carrier modules in drydock at DL), and we had confirmation evidence of it being 001A in early 2016 when it was obvious it was a carrier -- earlier than my own prediction.
As for 002, obviously we're still over a year away from the projected earliest sighting of evidence of 002, and probably two or three years away from confirmation evidence of 002.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-5#post-346004

PanAsian · Jul 27, 2016

Bltizo said:
I'm not sure who in the original debate would have argued that a third carrier would be in service by 2020, because I definitely would not have taken up the wager if those were the terms.

The roots of the wager was in Jeff's 2015 update thread.
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-2#post-345729

If we go through that thread, I think the original discussion about how many carriers the Navy would have in coming years was started by one of your posts:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-2#post-345729

Then you later clarified your position in an initial wager format:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-4#post-345944
The point which was under contention, and the reason for the wager -- directly quoted from you -- was: "I may still be correct that they won't have more than a pair of carriers at sea within a decade and I may still be correct about the priority/pace of their carrier program."

Of course I then immediately replied and laid out my position which can be read in full:
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-4#post-345947

Then you later succinctly summed up your position later: "What I am predicting is no more than 2 carriers in the water by 2025."
https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-6#post-346067
... and that is how we reached the terms of construction which Jeff proposed, here (which you accepted): https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-6#post-346069

So overall I can't see how you could argue the wager was "generous" towards the more carriers side, because I don't think many if any people in that original thread argued that we'd have three carriers in service by 2020, and from what I can see you never mentioned three carriers in service by 2020 either, and your position was that they'd only have two carriers "at sea" or "in the water" by 2025.

====

just for lulz, I'd like to bring up my own prediction from that thread:
"My personal belief: I don't think we'll get evidence of 002 within 2015, however I do think we'll get evidence of 001A within 2015, and significantly clearer evidence by the end of 2016 at the latest (given the modules at DL's drydock probably won't look like a carrier hull for a while). We'll probably get first evidence of 002 a few years after 2015, maybe 2017 at the earliest. I'd expect three carriers commissioned by 2030 (or at least two commissioned and the third on the cusp of commissioning) and with evidence of a second hull from DL and a second hull from JN as well, assuming there are no substantial changes to the economic climate."

And it turns out we did get evidence of 001A in 2015 (in mid to late April, to be precise, when we first had pics of the carrier modules in drydock at DL), and we had confirmation evidence of it being 001A in early 2016 when it was obvious it was a carrier -- earlier than my own prediction.
As for 002, obviously we're still over a year away from the projected earliest sighting of evidence of 002, and probably two or three years away from confirmation evidence of 002.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-5#post-346004

Thanks for looking all this up, obviously I do not remember correctly!

However it is absolutely valid to say that the final wager setup is more generous to the more carriers side because my initial proposal for the wager (linked but not quoted by you above) is whether multiple carriers were being constructed during 2015.

As I've said before I agreed to the final terms of the wager and I don't intend to change it. It is fun though to keep guessing before it all becomes crystal clear.

Blitzo · Jul 27, 2016

PanAsian said:
Thanks for looking all this up, obviously I do not remember correctly!

However it is absolutely valid to say that the final wager setup is more generous to the more carriers side because my initial proposal for the wager (linked but not quoted by you above) is whether multiple carriers were being constructed during 2015.

Right, though I don't think anyone would have argued against your original proposal, because I don't think anyone believed (or currently believes) that multiple carriers were under construction in 2015.

In other words, that original proposition was a bit ridiculously high statement to begin with.

As I've said before I agreed to the final terms of the wager and I don't intend to change it. It is fun though to keep guessing before it all becomes crystal clear.

Yes, and I didn't mean to be too pedantic in looking all that up nor was I trying to nitpick you, it was more to refresh my own memory than anything.

PanAsian · Jul 28, 2016

Bltizo said:
Right, though I don't think anyone would have argued against your original proposal, because I don't think anyone believed (or currently believes) that multiple carriers were under construction in 2015.

In other words, that original proposition was a bit ridiculously high statement to begin with.

Yes, and I didn't mean to be too pedantic in looking all that up nor was I trying to nitpick you, it was more to refresh my own memory than anything.

That's cool, no need to denigrate my original wager proposal then. Multiple earlier pages in that thread discuss the priority and pace of China's carrier program at a time when reliable or any information on it was scant but their significant build up of many other naval platforms was already confirmed. In that context the initial wager setup is quite reasonable and at the time Blackstone took it up as is. Given what we now know of the fast pace of construction of their 2nd carrier the initial wager setup is even more reasonable.

Blitzo · Jul 28, 2016

PanAsian said:
That's cool, no need to denigrate my original wager proposal then. Multiple earlier pages in that thread discuss the priority and pace of China's carrier program at a time when reliable or any information on it was scant but their significant build up of many other naval platforms was already confirmed. In that context the initial wager setup is quite reasonable and at the time Blackstone took it up as is. Given what we now know of the fast pace of construction of their 2nd carrier the initial wager setup is even more reasonable.

Actually, I still believe the initial proposal is one which few would have taken up (and I still would not) -- because at the time, the rumours were fairly persistent that while 001A had already begun construction for a while, 002 construction had not yet begun, so the idea that two carriers being under construction both in 2015 was definitely unreasonable given the information we had to work with.

In other words, the position I held at the time (and still hold) regarding Chinese carrier planning is still primarily informed from the rumours that we've received over the years. Without those rumours to provide the key information to build a prediction around, I probably wouldn't have entered any wager to begin with regardless of the terms because then I would be making a position which would be unsubstantiated by rumours.

The proposal of multiple carriers being built in 2015 also wasn't really a reflection of the original position you held, which was skepticism that the Chinese Navy would have any meaningful carrier capability "within a decade" beyond only two carriers... as I wrote in that thread to your original wager proposal:
"I think those are some tight terms. The issue is less about whether we'll get evidence of multiple carriers being constructed in 2015, but whether PLAN is pursuing multiple carriers for service within the next decade or more."
After all, the Chinese Navy may well be planning for more than two carriers in service by 2025, but that doesn't mean they need to have started building two domestic carriers in 2015.

PanAsian · Jul 28, 2016

Bltizo said:
Actually, I still believe the initial proposal is one which few would have taken up (and I still would not) -- because at the time, the rumours were fairly persistent that while 001A had already begun construction for a while, 002 construction had not yet begun, so the idea that two carriers being under construction both in 2015 was definitely unreasonable given the information we had to work with.

In other words, the position I held at the time (and still hold) regarding Chinese carrier planning is still primarily informed from the rumours that we've received over the years. Without those rumours to provide the key information to build a prediction around, I probably wouldn't have entered any wager to begin with regardless of the terms because then I would be making a position which would be unsubstantiated by rumours.

The proposal of multiple carriers being built in 2015 also wasn't really a reflection of the original position you held, which was skepticism that the Chinese Navy would have any meaningful carrier capability "within a decade" beyond only two carriers... as I wrote in that thread to your original wager proposal:
"I think those are some tight terms. The issue is less about whether we'll get evidence of multiple carriers being constructed in 2015, but whether PLAN is pursuing multiple carriers for service within the next decade or more."
After all, the Chinese Navy may well be planning for more than two carriers in service by 2025, but that doesn't mean they need to have started building two domestic carriers in 2015.

Which is why that is not the wager you agreed to, even though those are related points which are not mutually exclusive and reasonable to form into a wager proposal, so relax and enjoy the diversity of opinions in an internet forum and the twists and turns of China military watching!

Blitzo · Jul 28, 2016

PanAsian said:
Which is why that is not the wager you agreed to, even though those are related points which are not mutually exclusive and reasonable to form into a wager proposal, so relax and enjoy the diversity of opinions in an internet forum and the twists and turns of China military watching!

Yes, of course, nothing wrong with differing opinions.

And I feel obliged to express my opinion, that the notion that two carriers were under construction in 2015 was one few PLA watchers would have entertained, as well as to point out that your original statement of whether they would have more than two carriers in the water by 2025 (your original statement) would have been poorly and illogically substituted (and would frankly be irrelevant) to the idea that two carriers would need to be under construction in 2015 to fulfill it.

In other words, I'm circling back to your post #6065 where you said that the wager was tilted against you, and arguing that the terms of the wager were really the most reasonable and logical one that could have represented the premise of your original statement (about whether there'd be >2 carriers in water by 2025) in a clearly measurable form.

---

The original statement in this case, is from your post #19 in that thread, where you wrote "Maybe they will build a second Liaoning-mod CV per their pattern of initially rolling out two of each new ship class, I would still be somewhat surprised but I would be very surprised if they went further than that within a decade from now" -- which formed the basis of discussing a wager which could reflect on whether your original statement would be exceeded or not.

https://www.sinodefenceforum.com/2015-plan-update-review-by-jeff-head.t7165/page-2#post-345729

PLAN 2nd & 3rd Aircraft Carrier wager & planning

PanAsian

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

PanAsian

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

PanAsian

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

PanAsian

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

PanAsian

Major

Blitzo

Lieutenant General