That feels like a bit of a revisionist take. There certainly wasn't a consensus regarding it being a carrier, let alone a CVN, for "over six months." Even five months ago, members were still arguing for a nuclear icebreaker or a civilian hull. Some were adamant that a carrier was effectively impossible based on the configuration of the keel blocks. And I'm not talking about some fringe or new members but about established and loud voices.
Five months ago was was September -- at that time it is very reasonable to argue that its identity was not yet set in stone given what imagery we had of it at the time alone.
But for PLA watchers, we generally accepted that it was likely to be a nuclear carrier based on rumours.... however if it was based on visual evidence alone we didn't have that sort of irrefutable evidence until the last 1-3 months.
You're emphasizing the value of caution but ignoring the cost of being overcautious.
The cost of being overcautious is next to nothing -- but the cost of being overzealous is a long term stain to the credibility of PLA watchers from the defense watching community at large.
There is a difference between us PLA watchers saying -- "it's likely to be this based on rumor consensus" versus "there is irrefutable evidence it is this, and if you deny it then you are legitimately blind/idiotic/nonsensical and everyone has the right to laugh at you".
For PLA watching, being overcautious is our duty and our burden.
For PLA watching, being overzealous can be fatal and is something we should always try to avoid.
It takes time to build credibility, and it takes discipline to sustain it.
That discipline means we do have to temper our consensuses based on credible rumors and deductions, with conditionals and devil's advocate arguments.
You previously argued that we should wait for confirmation from 'big' sources. We still haven't really gotten that confirmation, yet the reality on the ground makes the conclusion undeniable. If we ignore visible evidence and refuse to apply Occam's razor until one of the major Chinese sources gives us permission to believe it, we lose the ability to track these developments in real time.
??
I've advocated for the importance of credible sources
as well as the importance of evidence that is undeniable.
In terms of noise from credible sources -- we've had noise over the last year or so that DL is building a nuclear carrier. Nothing that is explicit and clear like "Dalian is building a nuclear powered carrier right now and the big ship in the drydock is it", but there is enough for us to parse that is what the usual suspects are saying in between the lines.
As for visible evidence -- what on earth are you talking about? I have never suggested that we should ignore visible evidence.
In fact I'm pretty sure I've written on multiple occasions over the last year that I would love to see irrefutable visual evidence, such as hangar wall modules (ideally including flight deck overhang modules) being installed on the ship, among other features such as propulsion blocks etc.
And in the last month or so we've seen hangar walls and possibly flight deck ceiling being installed which would meet this threshold (as well as the possible nuclear reactor housings 2-3 months ago), which is visual evidence that largely meets the threshold.
Of course, the more gold standard that is fully irrefutable would be having flight deck overhang modules but that is going to be some months away yet.
Keep in mind, I have always been in favour of this likely being the nuclear powered aircraft carrier ---- however what I am
personally in favour of, is different to being able to shove the evidence in the face of people who may be skeptics and forcibly
make them accept that this is a carrier.
That is why
irrefutable evidence matters.
In terms of SDF itself, the vast majority of users have accepted that it is a carrier for the last 5-6 months, and the people occasionally coming into ask "how do we fully know it's a carrier" were asking fair questions if they were coming from the perspective of outsiders or based on people basing it on visual evidence alone, or experienced members wanting to be cautious.
Going back to the original post I was replying to TK6300 on -- he originally said "I still remember couple month back people were arguing if it were a civilian ship. How silly we were." -- a couple months ago (which I take to mean 2-3 months maximum), it was already fairly accepted based on the nuclear reactor housings that it almost certainly wasn't a civilian ship, and even most people waiting for evidence were much more convinced.
By December 2025 people were already generally convinced.
===
Edit
@HailingTX20 here are various posts I've made over the last year about my opinion on this ship's identity and what constitutes evidence versus PLA watching consensus. Have a read of them and reflect on the imagery of the ship's progress over time at each reply.
A more likely explanation, if this is indeed the CVN, is that the bow section is not fully accounted for in keel blocks. If you look at how the Ford class is build, a substantial section of the bow is not attached at initial assembly. Even the keel blocks were added later on.
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Update, via Captain小潇
www.sinodefenceforum.com
@Deino @Blitzo So what do you guys think? Finally carrier confirmed with the hangar section?
www.sinodefenceforum.com
Keep in mind that Ford is a decade old design. PLAN would expect a platform that has the same thermal output (for speed purposes) and higher electrical power. R&D on ACP100 was started in 2010, with preliminary design completed in 2018. So, not much of a difference.
www.sinodefenceforum.com
