J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

IronsightSniper said:

Credibility is irrelevant. Only the truth is relevant.

Click to expand...

How's credibility irrelevant? A source gets its credibility by giving information and assessment that is proven correct or true for at least most of the time. If you have a problem of remembering when was the last time a particular source make a correct assessment, then of course you will be suspicious of the source's credibility.

IronsightSniper said:

Credibility is irrelevant. Only the truth is relevant.

Click to expand...

And the West ain't known for that neither. Credibility is equivalent to saying how truthful we can hold their words to be and it emerging as depicted. And here's the interesting part: Chinese analysts emerge out of having studied Western technology enough to warrant that credentials, but not all Western analysts have done the reverse. However already they feel they're in the position to comment. Luckily, not only do they know nothing, their prophecies are usually nothing more than biases. The Russians, on the other hand, will be more of those right in the middle. They have their own biases against Chinese hardware too, but coupled with that they actually have quite an extent of knowledge and experience with some Chinese industries, they're more in the position to say things and can be held more accountable out of the 2.

airsuperiority said:

And the West ain't known for that neither. Credibility is equivalent to saying how truthful we can hold their words to be and it emerging as depicted. And here's the interesting part: Chinese analysts emerge out of having studied Western technology enough to warrant that credentials, but not all Western analysts have done the reverse. However already they feel they're in the position to comment. Luckily, not only do they know nothing, their prophecies are usually nothing more than biases. The Russians, on the other hand, will be more of those right in the middle. They have their own biases against Chinese hardware too, but coupled with that they actually have quite an extent of knowledge and experience with some Chinese industries, they're more in the position to say things and can be held more accountable out of the 2.

Click to expand...

Credibility is only a factor of perception. Credibility does not affect the truth.

IronsightSniper said:

Credibility is irrelevant. Only the truth is relevant.

Click to expand...

That's plain nonsense. Those analyists are merely expressing their opinion. Not even they are audacious enough to claim that their views represent the irrefutable truth. And where opinions are cencerned, credibility and neutrality are very much critical.

Your illogical and nonsensical arguments are now demolising what credibility you have left. But if you think credibility is irrelevant, the. by all means continue as you are.

In fact, my points were of the upmost logic!

You are right in that because credibility is a factor of perception and that we as the idiots of Earth must listen close and listen tightly to the learned men out there, their credibility is relevant, as we the majority determine what is true and what is not, and therefore how neutral or how bias they are, are quite relevant.

But that doesn't change the fact that just because Russian analysis called the J-20 a Strike-fighter doesn't mean that it isn't a strike fighter, neutrality and bias aside.

Ironsight Sniper: Enjoy what you're getting. This is a Chinese military forum, you should not be surprised by the responses you're receiving and we tend to overestimate PLA developments here; remember how long fanboys have been claiming that the WS-10 was ready for deployment onto the J-10?

====

The figures I see in the above estimate seem to be mostly correct; I get 19 meters when I look at the J-20. The 630 wing area is too small; I'm getting 780 square feet, which is within 10% of the F-22's wing area. The minimal wing area in this consideration is 740 square feet, which is not that much less than that on the F-22; -12% +13% range.

You could add another 73 feet wing area, but this is only for wing loading as this is the canard surface area. So that's something around 810, which is almost within 5% of the F-22's wing area, and then if you add in the anhedral and dihedral canards and wings, which means that our figures are off as they're based on the wings being parallel to the earth there's likely absolutely no difference at all.

IronsightSniper said:

In fact, my points were of the upmost logic!

Click to expand...

Just like how your Russian idols speak only irrefutable truth?

You are right in that because credibility is a factor of perception and that we as the idiots of Earth must listen close and listen tightly to the learned men out there, their credibility is relevant, as we the majority determine what is true and what is not, and therefore how neutral or how bias they are, are quite relevant.

Click to expand...

Popular perception is irrelevant. Just because most people believe something does not make that something real.

However, unless someone can provide evidence that what they said is fact, then any conclusions they derive are just opinions. For example, if the designers of the J20 went on record saying it was designed as a strike plane, then thats fact. However, some 'genius' arguing that the J20 is a strike plane because 'tis long', is about as far from a fact as you can get.

Reputation and credibility is critical in determining whether someone's opinion is worth listening to. Its not perception, but basic common sense.

But that doesn't change the fact that just because Russian analysis called the J-20 a Strike-fighter doesn't mean that it isn't a strike fighter, neutrality and bias aside.

Click to expand...

That's just circular reasoning. But its not even a very good one, as what you are saying is that what those Russian analysts said is completely irrelevant. If that's what you meant to say, than I agree. However, I get the feeling you were trying to make a somewhat different point, but got confounded by your own 'upmost logic'.

zoom said:

Seems you have read this too!

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Click to expand...

Isn't this the same Loren Thompson who stated that the J-20 must be a striker earlier?

plawolf said:

Just like how your Russian idols speak only irrefutable truth?



Popular perception is irrelevant. Just because most people believe something does not make that something real.

However, unless someone can provide evidence that what they said is fact, then any conclusions they derive are just opinions. For example, if the designers of the J20 went on record saying it was designed as a strike plane, then thats fact. However, some 'genius' arguing that the J20 is a strike plane because 'tis long', is about as far from a fact as you can get.

Reputation and credibility is critical in determining whether someone's opinion is worth listening to. Its not perception, but basic common sense.



That's just circular reasoning. But its not even a very good one, as what you are saying is that what those Russian analysts said is completely irrelevant. If that's what you meant to say, than I agree. However, I get the feeling you were trying to make a somewhat different point, but got confounded by your own 'upmost logic'.

Click to expand...

Which is what I mean! If an analysis' opinions are labeled as "biased" or "anti-Chinese" than what's the point? Deny the enemy attention, thus deny the enemy existence! I'm not advocating Russian analysis but what I am advocating is open-minded-ness. I'm just telling you that disregarding Western analysis simply on the unfounded opinion that they might be biased is either completely retarded or completely ignorant.

Inst said:

Ironsight Sniper: Enjoy what you're getting. This is a Chinese military forum, you should not be surprised by the responses you're receiving and we tend to overestimate PLA developments here; remember how long fanboys have been claiming that the WS-10 was ready for deployment onto the J-10?

Click to expand...

Emm.. I remember members here, having seen pictures of J-11B flying with WS-10a, asking when J-10 will be flying with it. I don't remember anyone here claiming WS-10 was installed on the J-10. Care to show any proof?