Do we have a sense of time for when his sources assisted China on AESAs and when he asked his sources? Or any idea for what aspects of AESAs and what projects they might have been helping with, and which institutions they were working with? In my experience a lot of disparate claims come out of the different timing of information. In domains where new developments are constant no piece of information or source is evergreen.
J-20 5th Gen Fighter Thread VI
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
- Status
Do we have a sense of time for when his sources assisted China on AESAs and when he asked his sources? Or any idea for what aspects of AESAs and what projects they might have been helping with, and which institutions they were working with? In my experience a lot of disparate claims come out of the different timing of information. In domains where new developments are constant no piece of information or source is evergreen.
Hyperwarp
Captain
Huh? How are those copies of a Russian designs? Especially the gimbal design. Both Raven ES-05 and Captor-E have been at airshows with a swashplate design for sometime.
Captor-E -
KLJ-7A -
Irbis-E -
The KLJ-7A does not rotate the way the Ibris-E does. (EDIT: It cannot rotate the way Irbis-E does.)
And, regarding the side arrays, well that is nothing new. F-22 still has provisions for side arrays. EDIT: If the program wasn't cancelled it probably would have got side arrays.
I'm somewhat reminded of mid to late 2000s defence journalist reports on the PLA where Russian sources were quoted somewhat extensively as if they had some sort of insight on the PLA's procurement plans and relevant Chinese defence industries.
Piotr's primary area of focus and expertise is Russia, so naturally it would make sense for him to naturally think of systems that he is more familiar with even if they may not be the most accurate system to compare it with.
How much of Russian consultation and assistance on technologies like AESAs are at early stages of development and how much are at later points of development? Being able to get a sense for that question alone would go a long way to helping us figure out how we should weight Russian sources.
Thanks ... slowly recovering at least.
I fully agree with you and my feeling tells me - esp. since he's not getting younger - and the his old contacts in the Russian scene were slowly drying out I'm fully on your side.
Agreed, and me too I'm surprised that the editor Mark Ayton at the AI contracted him to write the J-20 report? some sort of internal politics I think.
Get well soon Brother, and thank you for standing up for Piotr, thank you for clarifying the one mystifying aspect of his article... I take the same position that you do, that China is well on the way to having the J-20 "ship shape" in the avionics dept...
its obvious that Piotr does indeed consider you a serious source on "PLAAF" reporting
I said most western "insiders" did I not? Let me explain this slowly for those who are reading. "Insiders" come in various forms. One may claim X and another will claim Y. Few of them are trustworthy. I find you to be someone with high quality writing along with a few of the other forum members and writers. Basically this Piotr insider claims one thing but other western insiders claim J-20 has AESA. That is the point. They can't even agree on this. Since most do admit J-20 uses an AESA, then someone has to be very wrong. You made a huge logical error in assuming I trust any western "insiders" when I mentioned that other western insiders think J-20 uses AESA. I clearly wrote that to demonstrate the often intentional effort to inaccurately portray Chinese ability in western mass media.
Sounds like you have some respect for Piotr especially when it comes to Russian equipment. Seeing as he's name is Russian, that comes at no surprise. Particularly with his tone at talking down Chinese equipment and claiming they are copies of Russian ones. Please. Russia electronics technology in military sphere is barely 2000s China and commercial electronics technology is close to non-existent. But according to him the nation that hasn't even got one AESA on a fighter in service is being copied by a nation with several second generation fighter borne AESAs? Also far superior naval ESA systems? That immediately discredits this clown and DOES indeed warrant me calling him a clueless muppet. Anyone can claim to have insider sources. Show me one China related thing this Piotr was proven correct on before the news was common knowledge and claimed by official US or European white papers. Show me one.
Maybe he's okay with Russian stuff. I certainly haven't bothered to read them. But we have shown with as much certainty as possible that he is wrong. You said it yourself. He's sources if they are real and honest ones, are several years off and may have not been giving him information for several years. This guy needs to do a better job. Imagine if he had a serious job and paid no effort to getting his facts right and checking them thoroughly. I'm sorry but that's classic muppet behaviour
I think the word "insider" needs to be used carefully.
I generally consider the word "insider" to mean people who have access to "inside" information by virtue of their own direct relationship to either the industry or the service, usually because of their occupation or working in a position where they can get access to certain information.
For PLA watching, I would argue there are no such thing as "western insiders" because people on this forum, including Deino (as much as I hold him in the highest esteem of course) are not the individuals who have access to the fundamental information.
Rather people on this forum have the experience to track what insiders are saying (for PLA watching, those insiders are basically all Chinese) and to make sense of their releases to come up with likely conclusions.
So when you say "western insiders" I think a more accurate term would be to say "experienced PLA watchers" if you are referring to people who are "trustworthy" and who write in the English language -- or perhaps alternatively, "Chinese insiders" if you want to talk about the source and the basis of our current knowledge.
- Status