China Flanker Thread II

[rhino123]

wforum again? Sorry... But I think whatever that came out from that forum is just a bunch of BS...

And was beginning to wonder... when would you - Challenge, stop believing in those BS forum and post them or quote them in our fine forum... the wforum simply couldn't state real sources, references, and everything is just based on baseless spectaculation, lies and recycled old news that they shamelessly passed out as new one, sometime they don't even bother changing the contents of these news, just the dates.

If anyone take copyright seriously, the wforum would have been closed dozen of times. So do us a favour, and stop sending us or quoting us anything from wforum.

 

[challenge]

wforum again? Sorry... But I think whatever that came out from that forum is just a bunch of BS...

And was beginning to wonder... when would you - Challenge, stop believing in those BS forum and post them or quote them in our fine forum... the wforum simply couldn't state real sources, references, and everything is just based on baseless spectaculation, lies and recycled old news that they shamelessly passed out as new one, sometime they don't even bother changing the contents of these news, just the dates.

If anyone take copyright seriously, the wforum would have been closed dozen of times. So do us a favour, and stop sending us or quoting us anything from wforum.

correct, alot of stuff is BS, alot of them were recycle,but the fact is some of stuff can easily cross check with western and non-chinese sources. some article come from official chinese news or magazine.
good example was past issue of aviation week, russian told aviation week reporter that there are 2 firm in China currently developing AESA,and after India will arm there MIG-35 with AESA radar, pakistan quickly ask China for similiar radar,but later selected Selex AESA,it is likely the radar may still in the developing stage.

 

[taimikhan]

correct, alot of stuff is BS, alot of them were recycle,but the fact is some of stuff can easily cross check with western and non-chinese sources. some article come from official chinese news or magazine.
good example was past issue of aviation week, russian told aviation week reporter that there are 2 firm in China currently developing AESA,and after India will arm there MIG-35 with AESA radar, pakistan quickly ask China for similiar radar,but later selected Selex AESA,it is likely the radar may still in the developing stage.

Sir, PAF has not yet ordered for AESA radar from Selex.

They had offered the Vixen 500, but its performance parameters are much lower compared to what needed.

Its still not decided, but the race is still on between Chinese AESA & European AESA in the future.

As per recent insider news about JF-17, China has already finalized rather may be by now in testing stage the avionics for the second batch of JF-17.

Thus if the Chinese avionics suite is better compared to other western ones, then Chinese would be the final option, the way it was for the first batch, as the Chinese avionics for current thunder proved their worth when compared to the Grifo S7 series radar offered.

 

[rhino123]

correct, alot of stuff is BS, alot of them were recycle,but the fact is some of stuff can easily cross check with western and non-chinese sources. some article come from official chinese news or magazine.
good example was past issue of aviation week, russian told aviation week reporter that there are 2 firm in China currently developing AESA,and after India will arm there MIG-35 with AESA radar, pakistan quickly ask China for similiar radar,but later selected Selex AESA,it is likely the radar may still in the developing stage.

The point is... the stuff that you post in this forum from wforum are all being disputed as B.S. by members of this forum who are much more experience and knowledgeable than whoever reside in the wforum. And those as you chose to post them here... is somehow indicative that you think those are actually real facts... that is the problem here...

And from all the stuff that I have read so far (from your posting of the wforum content) are either highly nonsenrical, outdated news recycled and given a new date or simply mere speculation by some authors and passed off as true facts.

And as Tamikhan had said, even your latest good example is wrong too. So come on, quit relying on that junk wforum, well you?

 

[challenge]

The point is... the stuff that you post in this forum from wforum are all being disputed as B.S. by members of this forum who are much more experience and knowledgeable than whoever reside in the wforum. And those as you chose to post them here... is somehow indicative that you think those are actually real facts... that is the problem here...

And from all the stuff that I have read so far (from your posting of the wforum content) are either highly nonsenrical, outdated news recycled and given a new date or simply mere speculation by some authors and passed off as true facts.

And as Tamikhan had said, even your latest good example is wrong too. So come on, quit relying on that junk wforum, well you?

look I agree with you, theres' lot of BS and recycle , non sensense and PS .
worse example was the H-8 bomber which turn out to be hoax,fool everyone, including HK newspaper.(which I quickly dismiss as a hoax)other trying to pass as sources from janes defense weekly such as PL-16,(I check with JDW.jane.com,there is no article ,nothing about PL-16,everything about the PL-16 turn to be BS),other time it provided a hint or clue something new .which can easily be check with other source.

 

[rhino123]

other time it provided a hint or clue something new .which can easily be check with other source.

Such as? It would really be good to see something that wforum had posted that is actually accurate, or not just recycling of old news (posted as new ones, and hoping no one would know).

Sorry for saying... how many of your post quoting or linking to wforum, was not disputed? How many that you think is accurate (again from wforum) is actually loads of BS?

I will not carry on further... for it is way out of topic.ff What I am saying is... please do not quote from wforum... they really is not a reliable source regarding what you believe.

 

[lilzz]

I doubt those new pics are naval flankers or J-15. They all missing the canards.

 

[challenge]

Such as? It would really be good to see something that wforum had posted that is actually accurate, or not just recycling of old news (posted as new ones, and hoping no one would know).

Sorry for saying... how many of your post quoting or linking to wforum, was not disputed? How many that you think is accurate (again from wforum) is actually loads of BS?

I will not carry on further... for it is way out of topic.ff What I am saying is... please do not quote from wforum... they really is not a reliable source regarding what you believe.

.whether you believe it or not.if you consider all the article are BS,that's up to you.

 

[EDIATH]

I doubt those new pics are naval flankers or J-15. They all missing the canards.

I bet you the Chinese naval flanker is not getting canards at all.

Canards mainly offer an aircraft manueverabilty under specific circumstances, as well as provide extra lift for taking-off. However, they create extra drag when airborne and add additional weight on the airframe, both with negative impacts on the length of time the aircraft can stay airborne.

The land-based fighters can mitigate the effect by running further distance for takeing-off, not an option for carrier-borne fighters unfortunately. Su-33 adopted canards for that extra bit of lift to compensate the lack of catapult's assistance for taking-off, at the cost of significantly reduced amount of oil and armament it carries. But Chinese naval flanker is unlikely to stay at the level of technology 3 decades ago, e.g. using modern composite material on airframe can greatly reduce the weight thus no canards are needed to help
taking-off.

Btw it's only a matter of time for future Chinese carriers to equip with CATOBAR system.

 

[rhino123]

I doubt those new pics are naval flankers or J-15. They all missing the canards.

But up till now, many of the things that we know about J-15 was just rumours and/or spectaculation. Is there really an official release or debut to show us whether the J-15 have canards? Maybe we can wait a bit to see the developement first.

.whether you believe it or not.if you consider all the article are BS,that's up to you.

Challenge... If you really like this much to have all your post rebuked and with many sacarastic remark make to you, it is all up to you... What I am pointing out is that... wforum is just one big b.s forum. I will leave it here now.ff