J-20... The New Generation Fighter II

IronsightSniper said:

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.

Click to expand...

That's nonsense, and utterly without basis or reason. And probably says more about your own thought process than anything else, since you are making a lot of baseless assumptions, which in this case, prove to be completely wrong.

I have read what many of those Russian analysts have said and dismissed them because their conclusion are based on some wild, and all to often, grossly inaccurate or hugely biased assumptions for which they could not possibly have any corroborative evidence to back them up.

On top of that, their analysis are almost always limited and highly selective in the factors that they consider, often with an unmistakeable dash of bias thrown in for good measure. It is based on these observations that I came to the conclusion that they suffer from sour grapes syndrome.

That is how I would expect anyone with a clear head to form an informed opinion.

Quickie said:

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?

Click to expand...

This is a Chinese military forum, you should not be surprised when people make random stuff up and claim it was said by Chinese fanboys first.

IronsightSniper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Credibility is a matter of perception? Sorry but I took critical thinking at my university, and what you've said is completely illogical, invalid, unsupported. Why? Because in the face of inductive and deductive reasoning, credibility means how far your words can be taken seriously.

Also you've mixed up truths vs credibility. While it is true, that truths don't change due to other's credibility, (aka. We can't dismiss a person's claim just because of the person's background, (this will be classified as ad hominem), so even a person with poor records can be right at times. Hitler saying it's wrong to be racist will still render his words true despite his actions) credibility is almost saying how more prone to errors or likely to be true that their words are.

In addition, credibility remains that the Russians are also likely to be biased too, so there are quite a degree of errors they are prone to, and there are no solid supports or proofs that u or others have yet to produce that designates J-20 is a strike fighter as official knowledge. This is especially combined you are not certified or in the ground to dictate anything, given you're nothing more than an armchair general like the rest of us, therefore to spare all the talks, we WILL find out how the PLA designates a role for this plane in the end.

So in the meantime, don't try and go around and tell us it's an established "fact" J-20 is a strike fighter. It is not something that Russians can say it is what the Russians think it is. Don't forget who made this plane

IronsightSniper said:

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.

Click to expand...

I think we're starting to get what you mean, but how you worded it is terrible. Also for the matter, we dismiss them after we've read it, and determined they're just another work of their biased art.
However if for someone like Bill Sweetman, who wrote a certain article and it was rather quality, then there's more reasons to give this work more credits

Fact is those experts know nothing because they don't have access to inspect the J-20 itself. You see the so-called experts for decades evaluating China. In the beginning they said China was never going to go anywhere because of the burden of a huge population alone. None of those experts ever thought the China they see today was ever possible. Same process of logic as with the J-20. If they can make a conclusion on the J-20 based on their own prejudices, like those who said China was going nowhere only to be proven wrong, then they are biased and not credible or reliable.

Alot of what the 'experts' said are no necessarily meant to be true in the first place but just to influence layman's opinion in the name of 'expert'.

Also there are some people in the west who have this habit of thinking that chinese netizens are influenced by untrue claims of the chinese media, but seems to think of themselves as above manipulation by their own medias in the west.

plawolf said:

That's nonsense, and utterly without basis or reason. And probably says more about your own thought process than anything else, since you are making a lot of baseless assumptions, which in this case, prove to be completely wrong.

I have read what many of those Russian analysts have said and dismissed them because their conclusion are based on some wild, and all to often, grossly inaccurate or hugely biased assumptions for which they could not possibly have any corroborative evidence to back them up.

On top of that, their analysis are almost always limited and highly selective in the factors that they consider, often with an unmistakeable dash of bias thrown in for good measure. It is based on these observations that I came to the conclusion that they suffer from sour grapes syndrome.

That is how I would expect anyone with a clear head to form an informed opinion.

Click to expand...

Which goes back to point A, you see what you see but the truth remains the same.

plawolf: While I like what you write, you gotta take it easy. It's the internet. Trying to fix misconceptions on it is like trying to purify a sea of piss. Do what I do, use the ignore list

IronsightSniper said:

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...

Just because so called "experts" claim that J-20 is a strike-fighter, that doesn't change the fact that J-20 is a fighter classification.

I have posted this earlier:

Engineer said:

It is funny to see people's self-serving bias at work. The plane isn't called J-20 for no reason. If it were a fighter bomber, it would have been called JH-20. Plus, with F-22 being the most challenging problem to PLAAF, it doesn't make sense for China not to build an aircraft that would address this problem once and for all. This, and the fact that China has no history of building new dedicated tech-demonstrator means J-20 is very much a fighter prototype, period.

All those arguments about J-20 being a bomber, tech-demonstrator, etc. are actually non arguments intend to side-step and avoid discussing J-20 potential capabilities. Implicitly claiming that J-20's mission profile does not intend the aircraft to be maneuverable or attack targets in the sky is just so much easier than admitting that the F-22's invicibility myth will soon be busted.

Oh, and the canards? They play a critical role in the aerodynamics properties of the aircraft, and as such, their design have been frozen years ago along with the shape of the rest of the aircraft. The fact that Chengdu sticks with canards show that canards aren't detrimental to stealth as myths potrait to be. Don't let them stop you from fapping at the idea that the canards will somehow be modified away though. Just be aware that engineering principles say the canards are staying and will not receive design changes.

Click to expand...

IronsightSniper said:

Which goes back to point A, you see what you see but the truth remains the same.

Click to expand...

no one is disputing that. why'd u even mention?