FFG 054/054A Thread

[crobato]

Every forum I see, and no matter what aisle they came from thinks he is "clueless from Toronto". Proper journalism is not the place to put opinion unless you put all probable possibilities.

Something is not true unless it has to be proven true. He does not need to be proven wrong. He is assumed to be wrong by default unless he proves himself right.

The simplest and fastest way to build a radar that looks like a Fregat is to make an antenna that looks like one. The radar can be entirely different from the inside but people thinks its a copy because of the superficial resemblence with the array. And without having a closeup of the array and the internal radar equipment how can you tell? The radar in fact may just be an evolution of your previous designs, all you did is just change the exterior.

One reason why the PLA has a policy not having "foreign assistance" in their radar programs is due to the EL/SIG/HUMINT and espionage possibilities.

Feng had already previously posted pictures of the Fregat and the Sea Eagle close up and rather large enough to view the mechanisms behind the array and the phase shifter/lenses, to see that both designs are rather different when viewed up close.

 

[Schumacher]

In one recent article by Pinkov on PLA's alleged BM against carrier program, he stated that a carrier travels 30m a minute at top speed & that a certain warhead has 388mm lethal radius.
It shows the level of professionalism or lack of it of this guy.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

 

[zyun8288]

Actually, I think Golly has a point. Maybe we are dissing Pinkov too quickly.

To be fair, Pinkov, again, has made a claim that 054A's radar is copy of Fregat via Ukraine.

Obviously he is the one who needs to provide SOLID evidences to prove that.

So, I think the right questions to ask him are, considering he is an author of public professional media :

1. From where, whom and when did he get the information on the connection between Ukraine and 054A's radar. (can't be himeself)

2. Any details of the information, especially the original words from his source.

3. Any graphic or document evidences provided by his source so that the words can be verified.

4. Any independant or third party cross checking, apart from evidences from his source.

...

But of course, Pinkov never cares.

 

[crobato]

Well, those things should have been in the article in the first place. Otherwise, any proper editor would not have it printed.

 

[Schumacher]

.......
Obviously he is the one who needs to provide SOLID evidences to prove that.

........

Sadly, Pinkov is far from the only one. There're many 'journalist' work on China out there that are based much more on personal opinions & wishful thinking than solid evidence.
For example, the 'solid evidence' required by many to make a claim PLA copied a plane may amount to nothing more than the fact that they share the similarity of having 2 wings & a tail or 2.

 

[tphuang]

Nice to see we are getting some discussions going again. My problem with Pinkov is actually what Zyun posted. Which is, he starts with the assumption that China copied the radar. And then his line of reasoning is that only the Russians and Ukrainians (allegedly) have the blue print of the radar, since Russians didn't provide the help, they must have copied it off the Ukrainians or copied it with the help of the Ukrainians.

Of course, he totally ignores the fact the existence of previous Sea Eagle radars, the reports about the extensive testing program of this radar ongoing since the 90s, the fact that a newer generation of this radar is now being tested on 891 and the fact that we have pictures indicating this radar is probably operating on a different frequency band than Top Plate.

This seems to be a common theme with the other su-35 article I posted.

Although, he did provide some nice stuff in the latest edition with the Mi-171 report and also the report on UGT-15000. If that goes on future 054 frigates as I guess, then that would give it quite an advantage in propulsion over say Talwar, which is still using M7 propulsion.

 

[crobato]

A good example of a previous radar is the phase array that is situated on top of the second mast of the 167 Luhai. I think its called Rice Screen or Type 381. Its not hard to see how you can evolve the array into something like the Fregat's and put that on top of the 054A.

 

[Gollevainen]

For these reasons posted by after my last reply, is why I don't belive anything unless its thorwn to my face. There are just too much of these "journalist" out there and Pinkov isen't the sole one. Sadlly to my eyes it seems that people tends to "pick" stuff according which to believe according of their own likes and dislikes. What makes some other internetsource which states something opposite more accurate and favourable than Pinkov? Is it becouse some other source shows chinese stuff in better light?

The radar issue is interesting topic in its own. I don't think Pinkov or anyone who knows anything about PLAN at the first place ignores the Type 381 radar. It's more than obvious that if chinese develops a new phassed array 3d radar, the starting point would be the existing system (if its developted by the same burey) The close-up pictures between Fregat and this new radr indicates that the supporting and moving parts behind the actual radar plate are more close to the type 381 than with Fregat.
My amatuer-analyze is that the Sea Eagle is derivation of the orginal Type 381, improved with the concepts and features adopted from the more mature russian radar. Thats what we all can agree upon, right? But does that outclude any foreing assistance involved in the path that led to this point? No nor does it proves that it had. So untill more deeper insights of the radars backround we are just left to navigate in these harsh waters of rumours and speculations.

BTW, just out of curiosity, how does radar waveband shows in a picture? Some prochyre? I really would like to see that one...

 

[crobato]

What makes some other internetsource which states something opposite more accurate and favourable than Pinkov? Is it becouse some other source shows chinese stuff in better light?

All it needs to show if the other sources are getting their predictions and estimations are right on the record. And that's what's happening.

 

[Gollevainen]

So the rule is that the one that predicts or estimates or just plain and simple quess obvious-to-the-eyes-as-revealed things right, wins and is the most respectfull and realible source?

...And I tought it had something to do with research, depth and accuracy of details...