corsair7772 said:
gf0012-aust said:
corsair7772 said:
an unbelivable ...... most of em chinese which arent a joke.
I'd really would question this. I've seen a number of evaluations on Chinese radar technology and to be blunt it is not that good - they are at the capability level that Russia was in the 80's - not even the 90's.
That is the reason why they have been vigorously trying to pursue tech arrangements with the Israelis and French. The French, Israelis and the Russians will not let China anywhere near their latest gear.
One can see by the way that they plan and design their long range sensors that they are stuck in a deifferent mindset re design issues - they are certainly not capable of competing against countries like Czekoslovakia who have a far greater design ability.
Says you. In case were being mistaken here let me tell u tht i was judging them in terms of anti jamming capability NOT surveillance. Not a key issue ofcourse but still hardcore when u take in2 account the fact tht india is all set to build up a large EW complement specialized in jamming.
On the other hand, since you seem to be underestimating chinese electronic gear so much, you should see the seeker and radar systems they have mastered of developed themselves for their SAMS the FT-2000 being a good example. Note that china has the ability to master systems like the ones on the Su-27 or the SA-10 by something like 2012~14. Not a bad deal when you think about it.
And one more thing which isnt about technical analysis. When you judge systems by technical details you sometimes fool yourself due to the fact that your choosing to ignore the scenario or conditions theyd be operating in. For example, an E-2 hawkeye may not be worth much in NATO vs WARSAW war but certainly a lot in an Indo Pak one. Get what im sayin rite? Think about it.
What is your problem? The last time I worked on an electronic warfare project was less than 12 months ago. I think my information re systems might have a little more currency than you. I've just come out of a 3 day conference on Electronic Warfare - and what I have obliquely referred to in my statements still stands.
EW is always assessed against a contemporary scenario - it is NOT assessed on a pref warfighting scenario.
Attempting to isolate a jamming capability from surveillance capability is not a realistic scenario - the combat suite in a modern platform includes it. Jamming IS part of surveilance, (unless the country is living under a rock and has not come out a second generation EW stoneage.)
China has yet to show any strength at all in developing a decent EW suite, it tried to jump the generational queue by buying Israeli and French systems.
From what I do (which is a darn sight more realistic than what others may read or get off the web), I can tell you without fear or favour, that China does not have an "unbelievable" anti-jamming capability and some of the worlds most advanced radar systems etc.....
I don't underestimate Chinas capability at all. Have you paid any attention to their own assessments that were being made in 1999 and every annual report that has come out since. They are unable to deal electronically with Taiwan and certainly nowhere anywhere near a capability to electronically match Japan.
We match up platform capabilities constantly - and Chinas EW footprint and e-scan capability is less than the Saudis. All they have are numbers - big bloody deal. A stalinist warfighting philosophy where people are impressed by numbers and not quality does not constitute a high quality response system.
You can put all the spin in the world on what China has, but it won't impress anyone who actually looks at their gear for a reason.
There are 5 "P's" that denote a modern survivable combat capability. Tell me what they are and I'll start to believe that you actually know what you are trying to argue in this thread. Needless to say, China does not qualify on all 5 "P's".
btw, China gets wargamed across a number of spectrums - you assume a bit much by thinking that "we" ignore realtime scenarios. I'm hardly going to make combat assessments on China based on countermeasures designed around the Fulda Gap.
