Search results

Its fine to be challenged. Its not fine to be challenged by someone that tries to do so with paper thin credentials and take them as absolute fact.

People are allowed to make assumptions and their opinions. However that is with the full admission it is an opinion. You however pull up credentials no one can verify and state your opinions as fact. See the difference?

Serious reading malfunction I see. Last time I checked the administrator of sinodefence is Popeye, an EX US navy personnel. Sinodefence unlike certain unnamed Indian forums actually focuses on technical discussion rather than circlejerks.

I get it you had nothing to debunk with that picture and is simply more things you added to pad your post. No need to keep trying to cover that up. FFS Gambit provide something people can individually verify. All your credentials are things that can not be verified by anyone.

Yes the website that is administered by an ex US Navy personnel. And my my he actually has credentials to back it up. Unlike a certain 5th gen guru we have here that coasts by on people not actually questioning his background. Gambit's just mad that Popeye gave him the ban hammer for refusing...

I don't need to answer for anyone else's comments or videos. However you do need to answer for your own statements that you were involved in 5th gen projects to verify your credentials.

An picture of an dihedral reflector proves who is wrong? Stop posting pics that have no relevancy to the current argument. Anyone can post simple pictures. No one needs precise details of anything. How about credentials that you were actually involved in the design, maintenance, or building of...

Love it when random Indians come in to fan support on someone that argues with Chinese merely for the fact that they argue with Chinese, when they themselves have no guts to do it themselves. You put the same thing on every single thread about 5th generation fighters. As if the mere thought...

Fundamental principles that have nothing to do with the discussion and only used to by you to pad yourself to make you seem knowledgeable when a 3rd grader interested in fighter planes could look up the same thing on Google. Yes quite boring.

Intellectual dishonesty in this thread has only been shown by Gambit. Others argue and point out that they are not in any way professionals in the subject and are basing them based on their best judgement. Gambit here pretends that he is an actual professional on the subject when he is clearly...

To solve this whole problem of certain members claiming that they have professional knowledge when they obviously lack it, this forum needs to implement a credential system like on other sites. If you claim you have explicit knowledge on a subject you actually have to give paper evidence to...

Gambit likes to hide behind the arguments of other people when you try to make an argument. " Oh but Martian says this so prove that". Does my name look like fking Martian? Yeah arguing with Gambit is pointless. He'll bring out the same articles and images dozens of times. He'll try to make...

Heres the problem. Mr Gambit likes to use arguments of different Chinese people in his arguments and expect that we back them up. As if we were one big happy family that just agrees with each other. This inherent racial grouping from him makes any reasonable argument completely impossible...

Fine. An observation many people have probably already made. The RD 93 engines seem to be significantly smaller than the engine nacelles that they were fitted in. The WS 13 series is no bigger. What engine would be in the final version of the plane as these are obviously interim?

Respect is not something you can demand. It is something that can only be earned.

Heres the problem. When you challenge non Chinese its on technical details with a thoughtful and straight up answer. When its Chinese you use one liners and use racial bias that such as "all you Chinese boys tripped over each other in 'Thank' for posts that have no technical merits whatsoever"...

And you support one over the other based purely on their nationality. Makes you the better man right?

China uses both in their due to their respective advantages. Two piece primarily for its naval bird protection, and 1 piece for air force visibility. A curved metal brace reflects radar. How much it affects RCS in total is the question. From a front on angle though that would be significant...

F 35 uses a 2 piece canopy It has a bracing support unlike the one on the F 22 It may operate like a one piece but the effect on radar reflectivity is definitely different and hence the entire point

Thought I already cleared up the the topic of a two piece canopy being structurally necessary on a naval and carrier platform. Beating on a dead end argument won't help make you any more credible. China has already demonstrated one piece canopies and if the J 31 was meant for the air force it...