I know.
I know.
And where do you think the details of their reports come from?
I see nothing inconsistent or unreasonable in this picture or in the context of PLA watching.
It just means PLA watching is more difficult than say, watching western military forces and their developments.
It means we need more effort, more vigilance, more critical thinking for PLA watching.
I see nothing wrong with that.
Considering few if any of those experts and journalists have been able to make predictions that those of us here relying on open source rumours have been able to make, I would say few if any.
Yes, you seem to trying to defend their incompetency while I am attacking their incompetency.
What "doubt"?
No one is claiming the PLA will adopt a boom system. They might never adopt a boom system.
All I am claiming is that this photo shows they are likely doing some levels of R&D into it.
This paragraph does not answer my challenge.
My challenge to you, was whether you believed the PLA should openly disclose new systems they have under development and whether they have a record for this.
LOL -- no, it is absolutely not in the PLA's interest to give a working detail on the progress that their new weapons developments are undergoing.
Let me be crystal clear -- it is a strategic advantage for the PLA that its strategic competitors are unable to accurately ascertain and tend to often underestimate the breadth and speed of new PLA capabilities and under-development systems.
If the USAF knew in 2000 that CAC would fly J-20 in 2010, do you think that they would have adjusted their procurement policies a little?
If the USN knew in 2005, how many 052Ds the PLAN planned to have in service by 2020 and beyond, do you think they would have adjusted their procurement policies to better cope with the challenge?
Hell, if the USN knew in 2005, the very idea that the PLAN would seek to develop and commission a ship like 055, do you think that would have given them greater time to adjust their procurement and strategy accordingly to better deal with the challenge?
No it doesn't.
It just means that the public can defer to people who ARE able to easily differentiate (AKA experienced PLA watchers), or if there are members of the public who are interested, they can try to learn how to differentiate for themselves.
D
Deleted member 13312
Guest
From intelligence source in side China (IE : Possible moles and agents), not just forum posts.
That is the problem, the inability to see it from the other end of the spectrum.[QUOTE="Bltizo, post: 505986, member: 4915"
The point here is not watching it from the watchers point of view, but from the general viewers pov. We can argue about this all day long but in the end we will never agree upon this so lets just agree to disagree on this.
Not from the open declassified reports that you're talking about we're not.
Those reports generally have citations at the bottom of them or at the end for their claims. You'd be surprised how many of them refer to news articles whose original sources are actually from places like SDF.
Not so easy.
I fully appreciate the general viewer's point of view. They do not have the time, the patience and the experience that the PLA watchers do, to critically analyze the PLA.
They also tend to consume more English language defence media as well, which distorts their ability to differentiate good sources and bad.
Therefore, when the general observer is genuinely interested we try to give them some accurate information.
But it does first mean the general observer needs to accept:
1: their previous understanding of PLA matters and their understanding of authoritative sources on PLA matters needs to change
and more importantly,
2: experienced PLA watchers are far superior sources to defer to if they are seeking news on new PLA capabilities and systems under development
I'm sure they knew that China had a "next generation fighter" under development.
But did they assessments at the time believe that such an aircraft would be a 5th generation fighter intended to compete with the US's own 5th generation fighters? I seriously doubt that.
That doesn't make a lot of sense. So, "they knew that China had a "next generation fighter" under development", but didn't "believe that such an aircraft would be a 5th generation fighter intended to compete with the US's own 5th generation fighters"? Of course it's possible that they might not have been able to precisely predict the capability the J-20 would have 20 years later (quite probably China didn't fully know either), but the fact that they were aware of the program in 1997 and provided a realistic timeline shows that they were well informed at that point.
What the Chinese intended were of no relevance to the US intelligence community. What they were concerned about is what they assessed the Chinese to be and become capable of. In neither of those assessments did "parity" or "superiority" ever cross their mind, hence their willingness to stop F-22 production at 187 examples.
Then, in just twenty years time, the Chinese have introduced an aircraft with a more comprehensive sensor package than the F-22, in a larger and more aerodynamically unstable airframe than the F-35, with greater potential for growth than either, operating in conjunction with the world's most sophisticated IADS and one of the most advanced ISR ecosystems, and backed up by the world's fastest growing - both quantitatively and qualitatively - R&D and hi-tech manufacturing sector.
So, yes, the US certainly knew the Chinese were interested in a next-gen (for the Chinese) fighter that, most optimistically, might end up being competitive with the West's prev-gen design. What the US didn't know and didn't even bother considering, is the Chinese next-gen will ultimately rival the US' next-gen, and in a lot of crucial areas, even show greater realised capabilities as well as greater potential for future retrofitting of new capabilities.
Jura The idiot
General
I skimmed over the discussion here, recalled this reference to China from
F-22 Raptor Thread Today at 9:22 AM
:
(hope that helps LOL)
F-22 Raptor Thread Today at 9:22 AM
:
"Discounting the quick rise of China's stealth fighter programs is among the worst calls Gates made."
(hope that helps LOL)