Comparing PLAN to Indian Navy
- Thread starter dabrownguy
- Start date
They are good at western equipments. But about China, or even India, they constantly publish misleading information. But at least in the English speaking world, they provide more info than any others about non-western countries. So still a big plus to them.LoL, agreed with contedicavour. Doubt that Jane's would give thier subscribe user such a terible miss leading infomation.
contedicavour
New Member
But in this case which source do you consider more accurate for PLAN data ? Sinodefence ? And for India ? Bharat-Rashkak ?
I have a bit of trouble relying on these sites - yes, they are very well done, but still how can they beat a defence group specialized for over a century on military intelligence ? I remain sceptical
Let's not forget who's behind Jane's : the defence industry, and most analysts are ex USN and RN commodores and captains...cheers
But in this case which source do you consider more accurate for PLAN data ? Sinodefence ? And for India ? Bharat-Rashkak ?
I have a bit of trouble relying on these sites - yes, they are very well done, but still how can they beat a defence group specialized for over a century on military intelligence ? I remain sceptical
cheers
I am not sure about China, but when it comes to India, most of reports in Janes is done by Mr.Rahul Bedi. He is not considered very reliable as he frequently mixes up data (example many problems in Indian T-72's have been protrayed as that of T-90's in a recent article by Mr.Rahul Bedi). Cross checking with MoD reports and PTI releases about Parliament question answer session will help. I am not saying BR is a better source, but even Janes has some unreliable Journalists. It's always better to cross check and read between the lines than go by the headlines
.Little questions regarding the stealth features on 054.
I notice there is a set of 4x4 missiles in the front deck of it. Arent them suppose to be VSL? or if it is to be "HSL", shouldnt it be kept in a dome shape cover?
I have a picture here, its from sinodefence.
I am new to chinese military, pls correct my mistake
I notice there is a set of 4x4 missiles in the front deck of it. Arent them suppose to be VSL? or if it is to be "HSL", shouldnt it be kept in a dome shape cover?
I have a picture here, its from sinodefence.
I am new to chinese military, pls correct my mistake
contedicavour
New Member
Actually they are the Chinese copy of Crotale SAM, HQ7, and they are not VLS at all since they are not vertically launchable in silos.Little questions regarding the stealth features on 054.
I notice there is a set of 4x4 missiles in the front deck of it. Arent them suppose to be VSL? or if it is to be "HSL", shouldnt it be kept in a dome shape cover?
I have a picture here, its from sinodefence.
I am new to chinese military, pls correct my mistake
cheers
if you follow Chinese news long enough, you would know the main actors involved. One of the most well known is Andrei Pinkov, who is the writer of Kanwa. He also assumes the name Yihong Chang on JDW. It has been shown over time that this guy gets a lot of stuff wrong. I generally find that Janes is pretty good with news from airshows, export information and publically revealed news, but when it comes to getting Pinkov to analyze the pictures, you have problems. He overly relies on Russian sources, so he often attribute Russian involvement in areas where there is none. I can give numerous examples of this. But in the case of 054A, he admitted in his kanwa article from this month that a lab in Shanghai produces something that looks like Bandstand from the outside. At the same time, we've seen posters of a Chinese naval radar that look like the one on 054A (let's face it, many different naval radars are consisted of two plates).
As for 054, I believe it's a 2x4 launcher.
Which one to believe? Janes or Sinodefenct ? NEITHER of themBut in this case which source do you consider more accurate for PLAN data ? Sinodefence ? And for India ? Bharat-Rashkak ?
I have a bit of trouble relying on these sites - yes, they are very well done, but still how can they beat a defence group specialized for over a century on military intelligence ? I remain sceptical
cheers
ONLY believe in your own eyes and brain.
For example, if you spend 5 mins searching for 054A's pictures, and 2 seconds counting, you should see that there are 4 Orekh radars on board, whereas the famous Janes claiming 2.
In fact, I am not talking bad about Janes. I just think Janes has its strength and weakness. In terms of western countries' military information, it's one of the best and reliable sources. But, when it comes to non-western military issues, even regarding Inida, a far more open and transparent country than China, Janes keeps on making mistakes.
But that's not a problem to me, because I understand no one is perfect. It's my job to analyse and cross check all the information I gather rather than just take whatever being told as granted.
It's HHQ7 ( an improved version of French Crotale which China imported 20+ years ago). It's not VLS.Little questions regarding the stealth features on 054.
I notice there is a set of 4x4 missiles in the front deck of it. Arent them suppose to be VSL? or if it is to be "HSL", shouldnt it be kept in a dome shape cover?
I have a picture here, its from sinodefence.
I am new to chinese military, pls correct my mistake
Currently we are talking about 054A, different class.
Also a little bit of PLAN's information on class designations. Unlike other navies, PLAN's class designation grows alphabetically. PLAN has 2 DDG families: 051 and 052, 2 FFG families: 053 and 054. When a new generation/class of DDG or FFG is designed, it grows like this: 054->054A->054B. It does not grow like Type42->Type45.
Understanding this class naming rule can reduce some unneccessary mistakes. For example, when DDG167 was launched, many outside sources claimed it's type 054 because they naturally assumed that it will grow by adding number. But in fact it's 051B.
Last edited:
contedicavour
New Member
Yes I guess I'm going to pay a lot of attention to pictures from now on, instead of relying on the articles. Though I am a bit angry when you consider how much it costs to have JD Fighting Ships (never mind the cost of online editions of Fighting Ships and JDW :vamp )
cheers
yeah, I know, I still think Janes does a great job in general, but for some reason, their quality of articles on pla is often not at the professional level that it should be.
chinawhite
New Member
Consider this
Jane releases information which was un-known at the time. Siondefence and BR both gather information from open sources like Janes and Kanwa.
Not always true. Unfortunately defense reporters in India are a new species (except for couple of reporters like Vishnu Som etc) and most of them don't do their home work either, and Janes Indian reporter happens to be one of them. Enthusiasts of BR/SD etc collate reports from multiple sources and compare them with Govt. sources (Such as Ministry of Defense annual report, Parliament Question and Answer sessions which are published), hence are in a position to draw right conclusions. In WEST defense reporting is well established.
Well, I can't comment on Jane's pricing. But Janes and several other mil magazines are very good in my opinion. Although they do have problems regarding non-western world, at the end of the day, their main consumer base is western world thus they don't have enough resources allocated for other areas. So as long as we know that, it's not a problem.
chinawhite
New Member
BR and SD are different type of websites which report different things. SD reports older information with some information and pictures. BR is a lot more indepth and is kind of run like a blog/forum/information/newest update site. Much like CDF and the front CD
contedicavour
New Member
OK fine with me. I found it interesting however to get an evaluation of the accuracy of my source of information n°1
cheers