J-10 Thread III (Closed to posting)

[rhino123]

No country would buy a squadron of fighter jets for evaluation because there is no necessity to buy if they want to evaluate. Bangladesh is not known to have any insurgency of the sort that neighboring Burma has though it has terrorists and for that J-10 is not practical. You don't need to have insider information to rule out obvious needs.

Did I say it is only for evaluation or really for evaluation (read properly, I say might be, and when I write that, I meant, I didn't know)? Did I say they want to fight Burma (hardware is the one who said that), I say it might be for combat needs (I never say who is the opponents, and I never it it is only for combat, I say might be). All I say is, no body unless you have insider info to know why Bangladesh wanted with the fighters on loan. All others are just examples that I brought out (might be true, might not be true).

 

[broadsword]

Did I say it is only for evaluation or really for evaluation (read properly, I say might be, and when I write that, I meant, I didn't know)? Did I say they want to fight Burma (hardware is the one who said that), I say it might be for combat needs (I never say who is the opponents, and I never it it is only for combat, I say might be). All I say is, no body unless you have insider info to know why Bangladesh wanted with the fighters on loan. All others are just examples that I brought out (might be true, might not be true).

Doesn't matter. There is no might be situation. I think Hardware is closer to the real situation. And you examples make no sense even in a classroom.

 

[andyhugfan]

Pakistani pilots are known to be brilliant when it comes to WVR comabt. So if the PLAAF pilots managed to tie or even come close that would be great news.

Yeah, or maybe the pakistani pilots are not as good as they used to be...

 

[Dizasta1]

Yeah, or maybe the pakistani pilots are not as good as they used to be...

I'm sorry, but are you an expert on the skill-level of Pakistani Fighter-Pilots?! Cuz the last time I checked, they whooped the Brits on a duel, had Israelis in knot and the indians ..... well they're not even worth mentioning! So I suggest you back up your remarks with some hard evidence.

 

[rhino123]

Doesn't matter. There is no might be situation. I think Hardware is closer to the real situation. And you examples make no sense even in a classroom.

Well... we will just have to wait and see. From what I know, Bangladesh is in not too much trouble with Mynamar, so much so that they wanted a war with that country, so I would call Hardware's situation BS.

And... on the record... please read and try to understand what I have written as a whole and not just nitpick on little details like in the classroom. I just gave a few scenario, which might or might not be true... because there are heaps of reasons out there not known to outsider unless you have insider info. And that is the main thing.

And it does matter, if you try to just nitpick in everything I say and miss the main point I was trying to bring up. And the main point is - there is no such thing as too much firepower in terms of defence, and there are heaps of unknown reasons out there, all other scenario are ''might be".

 

[broadsword]

Well... we will just have to wait and see. From what I know, Bangladesh is in not too much trouble with Mynamar, so much so that they wanted a war with that country, so I would call Hardware's situation BS.

And... on the record... please read and try to understand what I have written as a whole and not just nitpick on little details like in the classroom. I just gave a few scenario, which might or might not be true... because there are heaps of reasons out there not known to outsider unless you have insider info. And that is the main thing.

And it does matter, if you try to just nitpick in everything I say and miss the main point I was trying to bring up. And the main point is - there is no such thing as too much firepower in terms of defence, and there are heaps of unknown reasons out there, all other scenario are ''might be".

The question to ask is whether they want to start an arms race even though it is quite common. They got second hand navy ships from China and to get a top of the line fighter is going to signal a new direction. It's not that they are in a state of war with any country now and they are not rich like Saudi Arabia to buy outright.

If I did not call out your post as preposterous, lurkers might think we are a bunch of idiots since the experts are are the J-20 thread debating the more serious technical issues. Evaluation of the jets should not be included in your list of "might be".

 

[rhino123]

The question to ask is whether they want to start an arms race even though it is quite common. They got second hand navy ships from China and to get a top of the line fighter is going to signal a new direction. It's not that they are in a state of war with any country now and they are not rich like Saudi Arabia to buy outright.

If I did not call out your post as preposterous, lurkers might think we are a bunch of idiots since the experts are are the J-20 thread debating the more serious technical issues. Evaluation of the jets should not be included in your list of "might be".

Like I say, read my post as a whole and stop nitpicking everything. Plus, you and Hardware are the one that mentioned (Hardware, with you agreeing that to be more likely case) that Bangladesh need that aircraft for bombing of Burma. Or to be more accurate, Hardware asked why Bangladesh needed that much firepower, to bomb Burma?

Plus, anyone who read my whole passage and understand what I implied will not think that anyone in this forum is a bunch of idiots, unless he/her is that idiot himself/herself, because people will try to read the whole thing as a whole.

And if you wanted to nitpick, rather than read the whole passage, let me nitpick your statement too.

You say that Hardware's situation is the more likely one and now you say that, "It's not that they are in a state of war with any country", so which is which? If bombing of a nation does not signal war, then I don't know what signal a war.

Now that is also what i call nitpicking because, I know what you are getting at, and what you are getting at is that Bangladesh wanted the aircraft not for evaluation, and I respect that. But that is not the point I am bringing. I hope you can see that and stop haggling on this little detail.

 

[broadsword]

Like I say, read my post as a whole and stop nitpicking everything. Plus, you and Hardware are the one that mentioned (Hardware, with you agreeing that to be more likely case) that Bangladesh need that aircraft for bombing of Burma. Or to be more accurate, Hardware asked why Bangladesh needed that much firepower, to bomb Burma?

Plus, anyone who read my whole passage and understand what I implied will not think that anyone in this forum is a bunch of idiots, unless he/her is that idiot himself/herself, because people will try to read the whole thing as a whole.

And if you wanted to nitpick, rather than read the whole passage, let me nitpick your statement too.

You say that Hardware's situation is the more likely one and now you say that, "It's not that they are in a state of war with any country", so which is which? If bombing of a nation does not signal war, then I don't know what signal a war.

Now that is also what i call nitpicking because, I know what you are getting at, and what you are getting at is that Bangladesh wanted the aircraft not for evaluation, and I respect that. But that is not the point I am bringing. I hope you can see that and stop haggling on this little detail.

They are not in a state of war with Burma but it is sympathetic to the Muslims there. There is no contradiction. But neither is there a "might be" situation of them buying a squadron to evaluate. It is so inconceivable so someone has to point it out. It's not nitpicking.

 

[rhino123]

They are not in a state of war with Burma but it is sympathetic to the Muslims there. There is no contradiction. But neither is there a "might be" situation of them buying a squadron to evaluate. It is so inconceivable so someone has to point it out. It's not nitpicking.

And that sympathetic emotion warrant them to bomb Burma? That is as silly as using the loaned plane for evaluation. My point still remains, no one know why the Bangladesh wanted to loan those aircraft, and there are heaps of reason behind it. I will not dismiss it as a tool for war against a third country, be it Burma, India or whoever, or using it as evaluation to get this aircraft in future or simply for a sillier notion... for an airshow. The point here I, NOBODY KNOWS unless you have information from the inside, then feel free to show those information (with supported references that is) or else, Hardware and your own assessment is as stupid as what you claim mine is (which again... I didn't ever mention anything, just giving different scenario).

And there you go again... ignoring my entire post and its meaning behind, but nitpicking on small little details like loaning the plane for evaluation (which is only a simple scenario, which you find silly, and I respected that). But I do not know whether you purposely do it so as to get more attention or simply like to pick on such small little detail but ignoring the overall gist of a post for whatever reason.

And it is seriously getting pretty frustrating here.

Let me summarise to you one more time, the main idea behind my post is simply,

"Nobody knows why Bangladesh wanted to loan the fighter (loan - not buy), and there is no such a thing as too much firepower." this is in direct respond to Hardware's question and accusation on why Bangladesh wanted to loan the aircraft. All other written there are only scenarios that might happen or that I pull out from my arse if you so believe and if that would make you happy.

Are we clear now? Or do we need to do it all over again?

Finally... please read my post in entirety, digest it... and try your best to understand it rather than nitpick on little things.

 

[broadsword]

And that sympathetic emotion warrant them to bomb Burma?

That's a straw man you created. I did not say their sympathy will lead them to bomb Burma. They can show their sympathy in other ways without actually bombing Burma.

That is as silly as using the loaned plane for evaluation.

You did not say that in your post. This is what you say in your post

What I meant when answering to Hardware post was that there are many reasons why Bangladesh would want the planes (on loan or otherwise). And none of us here know exactly why they want it unless you have insider information. And who knows, they might need it for urgent combat needs, or they want to evaluate the fighter's capability and whatever.

"And who knows, they might need it for urgent combat needs, or they want to evaluate the fighter's capability and whatever."

In no way did I find the first part per se offensive. The latter part of your statement is so asinine that I had to answer with

No country would buy a squadron of fighter jets for evaluation because there is no necessity to buy if they want to evaluate. Bangladesh is not known to have any insurgency of the sort that neighboring Burma has though it has terrorists and for that J-10 is not practical. You don't need to have insider information to rule out obvious needs.

We can rule out insurgency because it does not have. You can also rule out terrorism. And of course you can rule out evaluation. Can you understand now why I disagreed with you?