China Flanker Thread II

[Deino]

... BTW, contribute something related to Flankers or consider keeping your mouth shut.

BTW ... I think the only one, who currently contributes anything to the recent Flanker-developments are surely not You two ... ff

So, let's have a break with this discussion and start with ... what are the visible differences between a J-11B and a J-15 besides the shorter sting, the canards ...

I would also suggest, that the new grey radome might indicate yet another radar (at least an ubdate) and the tail seems different ... deeper or not so high !???

What do You think ??

Deino

 

[KYli]

A ludicrous statement considering you have absolutely no idea how many articles I have read.

Please enlightened us of how many articles you read, but I would remind you that many posters here have been observers of the chinese military matters for many years.

It's pure laziness to lump the entirety of the Russian media into one category of incompetence without looking at the merits of individual sources. Definitely more convenient, I'll give you that.

True.
However, you already discredited SDF from the start. Consequently, I am skeptical about your well balanced view.

Secouldly, I don't see how Russia media can outrank Huitong, Dongfeng or CDF.

FAS is no longer actively updated, as most of its active military content has moved over to Global Security. On the other hand, this says absolutely squadush about the veracity of the content that is already present in reference to past events, such as the 1995 Sino-Russian Su-27 contract. In other words, you pointing out that the J-10 section of FAS is out of date is entirely meaningless.

The problem is that either of us or any person in the forum have read the contract and terms. FAS has not spelled out the details. Therefore, I don't know how could you proclaim that the 30% of content is absolute. I have read a lot of articles about Chinese military procurement. Initially, the chinese military would only produce ceartain percentage of the content, but ultimately the chinese would produce the entirety of the product legally. Therefore, your above article is much or less irrevelant.

 

[Orthan]

what are the visible differences between a J-11B and a J-15 besides the shorter sting, the canards ...

I would also suggest, that the new grey radome might indicate yet another radar (at least an ubdate) and the tail seems different ... deeper or not so high !???

What do You think ??

Deino

tailplane: "j-15" is tilting upwards, while j-11b is stable;

tailspike: notice the diference in distance betwen the landing gear of both photos...("j-15" picture was taken from a more back view then j-11b)...it corresponds to the diference betwen the two tailspikes;

As for the vertical stabilizer and the forward landing gear, IMHO the "j-15" photo is too blurry to say for sure if there is meaningful difference betwen the two.

 

[Schumacher]

What a pathetically idiotic comment. If you have anything specific to critique, go ahead and point it out instead of being cowardly generalistic about it. BTW, contribute something related to Flankers or consider keeping your mouth shut.

Actually I think the others have already done a good job criticizing what you wrote so much so you were reduced to 'cowardly generalistic' rambling, with little to do with Flankers, in your last reply to tphuang.
That's why I came in with what I said. It was quite silly to actually expect others to literally know how many you've read, don't you think ? But of course, you were probably more concerned with getting the last words in, rather than thinking through what you write, in that last reply to tphuang.

 

[montyp165]

Regardless of what the contract specifies, at this point the PRC has its perogative as to what it needs strategically will do so, but ZTZ99 is simply making logically dubious arguments here trying to spin them as gospel.

 

[ZTZ99]

Please enlightened us of how many articles you read, but I would remind you that many posters here have been observers of the chinese military matters for many years.

Actually I don't know how many articles I've read. I guarantee you that nobody on this forum knows how many they've read either. On the other hand, I wasn't under the impression that I have any obligation whatsoever to provide you the answer to such a question.

True.
However, you already discredited SDF from the start. Consequently, I am skeptical about your well balanced view.

I don't really care what your opinion of my well balanced view is. You also don't seem to possess the faculties to understand the nuance of argumentation. I have never discredited SDF. Actually, I have not discredited Pinkov either. The validity of sources is never either/or, good/bad. They are more correctly thought of as being on a spectrum or gradation of validity, with more reputable sources and less reputable sources, more often correct and less often correct. Thus even someone like Pinkov can sometimes get some things right. Sites that routinely use other sources possibly several times removed from the original source, like SDF, do not necessarily deserve the status that has been accorded it in this thread.

Secouldly, I don't see how Russia media can outrank Huitong, Dongfeng or CDF.

You seriously need to reread my previous post on huitong more carefully. And when did CDF come into this discussion? Don't get ridiculous and start putting up straw men.

The problem is that either of us or any person in the forum have read the contract and terms. FAS has not spelled out the details. Therefore, I don't know how could you proclaim that the 30% of content is absolute. I have read a lot of articles about Chinese military procurement. Initially, the chinese military would only produce ceartain percentage of the content, but ultimately the chinese would produce the entirety of the product legally. Therefore, your above article is much or less irrevelant.

Both FAS (and Global Security for that matter) as well as huitong mention 30%. This constitutes prima facie support of my contention that Russia always intended to supply at least part of every Su-27 made in China and that this was in fact part of the contract. If you think my sources do not actually state what they obviously state on a plain reading of the text, then you need to find your own reputable source which directly contradicts the plain reading.

 

[ZTZ99]

Regardless of what the contract specifies, at this point the PRC has its perogative as to what it needs strategically will do so, but ZTZ99 is simply making logically dubious arguments here trying to spin them as gospel.

Ah yes, generalities, the last refuge of the weak. If you think my arguments are logically dubious, I invite you to rebutt them with specific arguments, if you are capable of such. Otherwise you're just making noise.

Actually I think the others have already done a good job criticizing what you wrote so much so you were reduced to 'cowardly generalistic' rambling, with little to do with Flankers, in your last reply to tphuang.
That's why I came in with what I said. It was quite silly to actually expect others to literally know how many you've read, don't you think ? But of course, you were probably more concerned with getting the last words in, rather than thinking through what you write, in that last reply to tphuang.

This is almost not worth responding to. Almost. Funny that respondants have invariably failed to logically rebutt what I have said, while all you're capable of doing is sideline cheerleading with no substance in your posts whatsoever. Do you have anything specific to this thread and Su-27's that you want to bring up? If not, consider cheerleading in some other forum where they do not require logical argumentation.

 

[AssassinsMace]

Over in the NK torpedo incident thread, I corrected how Global Security was referenced saying the SK ship that was sunk didn't have sonar when it did.

 

[A.Man]

Ah yes, generalities, the last refuge of the weak. If you think my arguments are logically dubious, I invite you to rebutt them with specific arguments, if you are capable of such. Otherwise you're just making noise.


This is almost not worth responding to. Almost. Funny that respondants have invariably failed to logically rebutt what I have said, while all you're capable of doing is sideline cheerleading with no substance in your posts whatsoever. Do you have anything specific to this thread and Su-27's that you want to bring up? If not, consider cheerleading in some other forum where they do not require logical argumentation.

My friend, we don't get any new information from you. Please tell us some real stories!

 

[crobato]

Ah yes, generalities, the last refuge of the weak. If you think my arguments are logically dubious, I invite you to rebutt them with specific arguments, if you are capable of such. Otherwise you're just making noise.


This is almost not worth responding to. Almost. Funny that respondants have invariably failed to logically rebutt what I have said, while all you're capable of doing is sideline cheerleading with no substance in your posts whatsoever. Do you have anything specific to this thread and Su-27's that you want to bring up? If not, consider cheerleading in some other forum where they do not require logical argumentation.

Right now, dozens of companies are suing Apple, Google and Microsoft, who are also suing other companies and more. Any company can claim their IP is being infringed by those who can take an idea, an invention, who can innovate or imitate it to be better, cheaper and more accessible to its market. Jeez man, even the Russians sue each other, just as Sukhoi and KnAAPO has their own issues.

So whether the J-11B is illegal or not, it does not matter. I don't care. I don't think the WTO covers arms agreements.

I counted along the course of this thread, quite a bit of personal attacks from you. Take this as an official and last warning. Next time, you're completely gone. I am seriously bored enough that my ban finger is that itchy. This is not a democracy and this is the last word.

I need this thread steered back in getting more posts, pics and discussion about the J-11B and the J-15.