Principles of PLA watching

Blitzo · Apr 29, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
This, this right here is why the PLA is consistently tripping over its own feet. One cannot portray one's military as capable and modern without disclosing credible facts to back it up. It's like trying to show one has bling by parading a box labeled "jewelry" when it might as well be empty inside.

No.
One is perfectly able to depict oneself as capable and modern but still deliberately keep the extent of one's capability and modernity hidden away.

There is a difference between marketing/propaganda versus giving away potentially useful intelligence to one's competitors.

As for me being unable to "see through the noise" and to take the important points away from a revelation." by bring up the whole console issue, I believe that what it shows is perfectly clear. The console is clearly a simulation station or if not a mock up because the background is clearly not inside a plane. We also know that China has the drogue system by video evidence and expo specimens. But as of now there is no hard evidence to suggest that China is developing a credible boom system. So the whole thing paints itself as being more of a lofty ideal then any one rooted in real life progression, if they had put in a model of the boom system they are planning to use it would make it look more credible. In actuality the picture turns what is supposed to be a believable system into one that looks more like a hastily cobbled together shot.

Basically, I agree with the first half of this paragraph you've written, until the bolded sentence.

"No hard evidence" is a qualifier that differs depending on what we are talking about. If someone is making a bold claim that the PLA are interested in developing a space based hypersonic super plane, then absolutely we need something substantial to back such a claim.

But other things do not quite need such a level of evidence to entertain the possibility.
For example, is it reasonable to expect that the PLA are continuing to develop advanced variants of WS-10 even if we have no hard evidence for it? Is it reasonable to expect the PLA are developing stealthy cruise missiles to apply their demonstrated stealth technology for LACMs or ALCMs? Is it reasonable
And thus, similarly -- is it reasonable to expect that the PLA could be conducting R&D into boom refuelling?

I think the answer should undoubtedly be yes.

Putting it another way, the idea of the PLA being interested in boom refuelling is one that's been around for a while, and is one that can reasonably be determined to be within the grasp of their technological and industrial capability.
So what this picture demonstrates to me, is confirmation that some level of R&D is being done into this domain, even if it has only gone as far as developing a mock up of a console.

As for bemoaning the fact that the rest of the world lacks critical thinking, have you ever stop and think that maybe the PLA is also contributing to this problem ? If one makes oneself looks incompetent, one cannot blame the others from thinking that one is incompetent.Just as the PLA may not have the duty to accurately disclose its capabilities, the rest of the world is no more beholden to shift pass the murky and inconsistent statements . Perhaps it may be fun to be the sole discerners of this sector of knowledge but it is fair to point out flaws that makes the said knowledge less acessible.

If the rest of the world's so called experts do not have the patience, common sense, and critical thinking to find the conclusions from the noise, then that is their problem.
We can try to educate them if they are trying to listen, but the PLA has no obligation to be more open or more accurate to try to help the experts of their strategic competitors.

But I do not see it as a "problem" if those experts completely misread the PLA. Those of us who know better will criticize them for being stupid, but that doesn't mean we necessarily want them to be able to ascertain the truth.

Edit: I'd like to also address this part of your post
"Just as the PLA may not have the duty to accurately disclose its capabilities, the rest of the world is no more beholden to shift pass the murky and inconsistent statements"

The rest of the world -- ie civilians and people who are not experts or who do not work in this field -- certainly are not beholden to have to be competent at PLA watching.

But for foreign "experts" and "journalists" whose jobs and livelihoods and careers are tied to accurately assessing the PLA, then yes I think we absolutely have grounds to criticize them for being bad at their jobs.

Again that isn't to say we want them to be good at their jobs, but it does mean we will critique them for being bad.

Also, the PLA not only do not have an obligation to accurately release details of their capabilities and developments -- I would go do far as to say the PLA have an obligation to deliberately conceal accurate details of their capabilities and developments to an extent.

Deleted member 13312 · Apr 29, 2018

Bltizo said:
No.
One is perfectly able to depict oneself as capable and modern but still deliberately keep the extent of one's capability and modernity hidden away.

There is a difference between marketing/propaganda versus giving away potentially useful intelligence to one's competitors.

Basically, I agree with the first half of this paragraph you've written, until the bolded sentence.

"No hard evidence" is a qualifier that differs depending on what we are talking about. If someone is making a bold claim that the PLA are interested in developing a space based hypersonic super plane, then absolutely we need something substantial to back such a claim.

But other things do not quite need such a level of evidence to entertain the possibility.
For example, is it reasonable to expect that the PLA are continuing to develop advanced variants of WS-10 even if we have no hard evidence for it? Is it reasonable to expect the PLA are developing stealthy cruise missiles to apply their demonstrated stealth technology for LACMs or ALCMs? Is it reasonable
And thus, similarly -- is it reasonable to expect that the PLA could be conducting R&D into boom refuelling?

I think the answer should undoubtedly be yes.

Putting it another way, the idea of the PLA being interested in boom refuelling is one that's been around for a while, and is one that can reasonably be determined to be within the grasp of their technological and industrial capability.
So what this picture demonstrates to me, is confirmation that some level of R&D is being done into this domain, even if it has only gone as far as developing a mock up of a console.

If the rest of the world's so called experts do not have the patience, common sense, and critical thinking to find the conclusions from the noise, then that is their problem.
We can try to educate them if they are trying to listen, but the PLA has no obligation to be more open or more accurate to try to help the experts of their strategic competitors.

But I do not see it as a "problem" if those experts completely misread the PLA. Those of us who know better will criticize them for being stupid, but that doesn't mean we necessarily want them to be able to ascertain the truth.

Edit: I'd like to also address this part of your post
"Just as the PLA may not have the duty to accurately disclose its capabilities, the rest of the world is no more beholden to shift pass the murky and inconsistent statements"

The rest of the world -- ie civilians and people who are not experts or who do not work in this field -- certainly are not beholden to have to be competent at PLA watching.

But for foreign "experts" and "journalists" whose jobs and livelihoods and careers are tied to accurately assessing the PLA, then yes I think we absolutely have grounds to criticize them for being bad at their jobs.

Again that isn't to say we want them to be good at their jobs, but it does mean we will critique them for being bad.

Also, the PLA not only do not have an obligation to accurately release details of their capabilities and developments -- I would go do far as to say the PLA have an obligation to deliberately conceal accurate details of their capabilities and developments to an extent.

This is where we reach an impasse. As you stated, the said foreign experts and journalists have to be competent in their field of work. But in many cases they already are(those that are actual experts with credible sources and not mere pundits), it is just that the type of information that they are allowed to divulge is much less informative and detail. They cannot be expected to be more transparent then the actual source itself. This has a trickle down effect on the general public.
My stance here is that one cannot be frustrated at ignorance if the source of that ignorance is doing nothing to elevate the situation.
And I do not deny that the PLAAF is hard at work on R&D for refueling and cruise missiles. But it is the actual results (ie:bore fruit) that I am skeptical of. That is the one that requires credible evidence.
There is of course a difference between divulging sensitive information and that of mere marketing/ transparency efforts. But in this case the information in question is clearly not going to radically change the military status quo, China already has mid air refueling tech, a new boom system is not going to change the scenario much. So there is little need to conceal it.
"To an extent" being the key word here, this also begs the question ; To what extent? Is it to the extent of being portrayed as inconsistent an unreliable ? That is the question we must continuously ask .

Deleted member 13312 · Apr 29, 2018

AssassinsMace said:
Boy how sensitive when people don't automatically follow lock-step with your beliefs. Who are you again?

You should take a step back and see how you're the one so sensitive that you demand the PLA has to convince you personally. Don't think you're alone. I remember when the J-20 first emerged and the news media and Pentagon confirmed its existence, there were nobodies on the internet in disbelief and demanded the PLA personally show them the aircraft to confirm its existence.

Well if you are gonna make a statement, then you have to be prepared to back up that statement. The burden of proof is one the one making the claim, not the listener. You aren't going to convince anyone by appealing to emotions and acting in a presumptuous manner.
The J-20 issue is on a whole different level because at that point of time it is corroborated by neutral 3rd party sources, the difference here is that there is no other collaborative evidence other than that single picture and statement.

Deleted member 13312 · Apr 29, 2018

Bltizo said:
No.

For example, is it reasonable to expect that the PLA are continuing to develop advanced variants of WS-10 even if we have no hard evidence for it? Is it reasonable to expect the PLA are developing stealthy cruise missiles to apply their demonstrated stealth technology for LACMs or ALCMs? Is it reasonable
And thus, similarly -- is it reasonable to expect that the PLA could be conducting R&D into boom refuelling?

I think the answer should undoubtedly be yes.

As just a clarification, I am referring to the refueling system here. Not the missiles, there is enough evidence to prove the existence of that. But it is the photo shoot that is one of "putting the cart before the horse" type.

Blitzo · Apr 29, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
This is where we reach an impasse. As you stated, the said foreign experts and journalists have to be competent in their field of work. But in many cases they already are(those that are actual experts with credible sources and not mere pundits),

You'd be surprised.

I can name the number of foreign journalists and experts who were able to accurately predict J-20 prior to its emergence on one hand, on one finger actually.

it is just that the type of information that they are allowed to divulge is much less informative and detail. They cannot be expected to be more transparent then the actual source itself. This has a trickle down effect on the general public.
My stance here is that one cannot be frustrated at ignorance if the source of that ignorance is doing nothing to elevate the situation.

Let's put it this way -- there are a significant proportion if not a majority of self proclaimed experts and journalists who have made claims regarding PLA developments and capabilities that are way off the mark and quite inaccurate.
And there is an even greater proportion who are unable to pick up or acknowledge obvious signs of new developments.

Altogether, it means many of us here who have been doing PLA watching for a while and have learned the ropes for what accurate PLA watching needs, considers those individuals to have a degree of perceived authority and reach that they do not deserve due to the inaccuracy of their work.

And I do not deny that the PLAAF is hard at work on R&D for refueling and cruise missiles. But it is the actual results (ie:bore fruit) that I am skeptical of. That is the one that requires credible evidence.

You do not have to be skeptical of the results, because there are no results to see yet.

We will have zero results until we do.

We had next to zero results of J-20 until late 2010/early 2011 when J-20 was finally revealed, but we all knew J-20 was coming and we knew what it looked like at least 4 years before it came out.

There is of course a difference between divulging sensitive information and that of mere marketing/ transparency efforts. But in this case the information in question is clearly not going to radically change the military status quo, China already has mid air refueling tech, a new boom system is not going to change the scenario much. So there is little need to conceal it.

Goodness, so you're saying that you believe the PLA should openly disclose new systems under R&D that will not "radically change the military status quo"?
Seriously?
Like, do you have any evidence for a record of this? There are a few that come to mind, sure, namely weapons that are intended for export, but I cannot think of any instances of weapons intended for domestic use that have had their R&D status and progress disclosed openly.

This is ignoring the fact that boom aerial refuelling would actually have significant strategic repurcussions considering the role of air refuelling for extending the reach of strategic air forces and the advantages that a boom refuelling method has over probe/drogue.

"To an extent" being the key word here, this also begs the question ; To what extent? Is it to the extent of being portrayed as inconsistent an unreliable ? That is the question we must continuously ask .

Exactly. And that is what experienced PLA watchers are able to easily differentiate.

Blitzo · Apr 29, 2018

Viktor Jav said:
Well if you are gonna make a statement, then you have to be prepared to back up that statement. The burden of proof is one the one making the claim, not the listener. You aren't going to convince anyone by appealing to emotions and acting in a presumptuous manner.
The J-20 issue is on a whole different level because at that point of time it is corroborated by neutral 3rd party sources, the difference here is that there is no other collaborative evidence other than that single picture and statement.

Oh give me a break.

We had extensive information about J-20 that was "not corroborated by neutral 3rd party sources". We knew it was going to be from CAC, we knew it would be a canard delta. We knew it would be a heavy weight fighter. We knew it wouldn't be powered by WS-15 initially and would rely on interim engines.

That was all information that first came through the forums, and only later picked up by western defence media and defence reports.

In this case, what exactly are we trying to demonstrate with that picture? All that it shows is a likely mock up of a air refuelling console with obvious intention for an air refuelling boom configuration.

Nobody is saying that the PLAAF will imminently adopt an air refuelling boom aircraft. Nobody is claiming there is a designation or a configuration of a platform that it is intended for.

However, we can reasonably confirm from that picture that the PLAAF (or AVIC) are interested in boom air refuelling and are conducting some level of R&D into it.
I see nothing wrong with taking that away from the picture and the statement.

Deleted member 13312 · Apr 29, 2018

Bltizo said:
You'd be surprised.

I can name the number of foreign journalists and experts who were able to accurately predict J-20 prior to its emergence on one hand, on one finger actually.

And can you safely put a bet on how many of those experts and journalists are privy to sensitive information, or that they are actually with holding the said information which is most likely classified ?

Bltizo said:
Let's put it this way -- there are a significant proportion if not a majority of self proclaimed experts and journalists who have made claims regarding PLA developments and capabilities that are way off the mark and quite inaccurate.
And there is an even greater proportion who are unable to pick up or acknowledge obvious signs of new developments.

Altogether, it means many of us here who have been doing PLA watching for a while and have learned the ropes for what accurate PLA watching needs, considers those individuals to have a degree of perceived authority and reach that they do not deserve due to the inaccuracy of their work.

And in the other way, a many great number of these self proclaimed experts and the public in general are embolden by a supply of cryptic and inconsistent information that China does not care to certify or the PLA watchers care not to highlight and criticize at all. We are walking on 2 different sides of the road at this point.

Bltizo said:
You do not have to be skeptical of the results, because there are no results to see yet.

We will have zero results until we do.

We had next to zero results of J-20 until late 2010/early 2011 when J-20 was finally revealed, but we all knew J-20 was coming and we knew what it looked like at least 4 years before it came out.

And so lets just wait until more credible evidence of the boom system comes into existance to lay the doubt at rest once an for all.

Bltizo said:
Goodness, so you're saying that you believe the PLA should openly disclose new systems under R&D that will not "radically change the military status quo"?
Seriously?
Like, do you have any evidence for a record of this? There are a few that come to mind, sure, namely weapons that are intended for export, but I cannot think of any instances of weapons intended for domestic use that have had their R&D status and progress disclosed openly.

This is ignoring the fact that boom aerial refuelling would actually have significant strategic repurcussions considering the role of air refuelling for extending the reach of strategic air forces and the advantages that a boom refuelling method has over probe/drogue.

The US railgun research for example, they have at least a more detailed information on its progress with actually quite a few videos on its performance, and that is a much more radical system. And there is other advantageous that a drogue system has over a boom system (more refueling points, simpler installations and the like).
Lets not make this an appeal to the extreme fallacy here, just because it is in the PLA's interest to give a working detail on its progress does not mean it must open the flood gates.

[

Bltizo said:
Exactly. And that is what experienced PLA watchers are able to easily differentiate.

And which the rest of the public does not, which leads us back to square one.

Deleted member 13312 · Apr 29, 2018

Bltizo said:
Oh give me a break.

We had extensive information about J-20 that was "not corroborated by neutral 3rd party sources". We knew it was going to be from CAC, we knew it would be a canard delta. We knew it would be a heavy weight fighter. We knew it wouldn't be powered by WS-15 initially and would rely on interim engines.

That was all information that first came through the forums, and only later picked up by western defence media and defence reports.

There is also independent reports like the Congressional report on China which rely on sources like the Pentagon and the like, which in turn is quoted by the Western media as well.

Bltizo said:
In this case, what exactly are we trying to demonstrate with that picture? All that it shows is a likely mock up of a air refuelling console with obvious intention for an air refuelling boom configuration.

Nobody is saying that the PLAAF will imminently adopt an air refuelling boom aircraft. Nobody is claiming there is a designation or a configuration of a platform that it is intended for.

However, we can reasonably confirm from that picture that the PLAAF (or AVIC) are interested in boom air refuelling and are conducting some level of R&D into it.
I see nothing wrong with taking that away from the picture and the statement.

But it also highlights the particular problem of the PLA to be opulent and inconsistent even to unreasonableness at times. At which point can also say, give me a break and try to see it from the other pov as well.

Deleted member 13312 · Apr 29, 2018

AssassinsMace said:
Interesting how worry-wart Raj is complaining about the same innocuous thing.

Even more interesting is how quickly you resort to ad hominem arguments.

vincent · Apr 29, 2018

Bltizo said:
Oh give me a break.

We had extensive information about J-20 that was "not corroborated by neutral 3rd party sources". We knew it was going to be from CAC, we knew it would be a canard delta. We knew it would be a heavy weight fighter. We knew it wouldn't be powered by WS-15 initially and would rely on interim engines.

That was all information that first came through the forums, and only later picked up by western defence media and defence reports.

We knew what J-20 looks like back in 2007

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Principles of PLA watching

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Blitzo

Lieutenant General

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Deleted member 13312

Guest

Deleted member 13312

Guest

vincent

Grumpy Old Man