plawolfThat was translated from Chinese to English!:rolleyes: Maybe they should just post the article in English in the first place. Especially, considering this is a English Language Forum…………you think! Really,your sarcasm is un-called for and misplaced.:p
Oh really? So which part of the article said anything about China selling J11Bs? :rolleyes:
Just goes to show you can take the language barrier out of the equation and some people will still see things that are not there because they have it so firmly stuck in their head.
And your rant about people posting non-english sources is ridiculous. This might be an english language forum, but if the subject of discussion is regarding a non-english speaking country, then the best first-hand accounts are going to be in another language.
plawolfSo, according to the Chinese the original Su-27 had some short-coming and they improved upon it. So, now they have the right to sell it……….:confused:
And according to which ‘Chinese’ did you get that statement from?
If you can’t understand an article in a foreign language, the smart thing to do would be either to use an online translation tool, or ask someone to translate it for you. Not to make up a baseless claim and then try to attribute it to the article you could not read. :rolleyes:
plawolfSo, according to the Chinese the original Su-27 had some short-coming and they improved upon it. So, now they have the right to sell it……….:confused:
And according to which ‘Chinese’ did you get that statement from?
If you can’t understand an article in a foreign language, the smart thing to do would be either to use an online translation tool, or ask someone to translate it for you. Not to make up a baseless claim and then try to attribute it to the article you could not read. :rolleyes:
plawolfokay palwolf, lets see if you can answer some simple questions.
are each of these copies/developments of each other?
Ha ha, moving the goal posts already are we? Before it was merely copy, now you are lumping derivatives in as you suddenly realised your original BS claims have no back up in real life.
B-29 and Tu-4
nene engine and Klimov VK-1
Cold war era, complete different time. The mere fact you had to go that far back is damning, not only for your argument, but also in terms of you own knowledge, or lack of it.
Su-27 and J-11A
Go look up ‘license built’. :rolleyes:
Su-27 and J-11B
Chinese stripping everything soviet out of the Flanker and replacing it with modern Chinese kit plus massive structural improvements. A derivative for sure, but definitely not a copy.
Python 3 and PL-8
Again, we have co-operative tech transfer. Or are you going shift the goal posts again to add that to your list of things that proves Chinese are incapable of independent progress? :rolleyes:
Nintendo Wii, Chintendo Vii
To go list some obscurer games console rip-off as evidence against the Chinese military industry is the most ridiculous and pathetic attempt at BSing I have ever seen, and thats impressive!
and do you believe Chinese industries are engaged in violation of intellectual property?
I expect either a yes, no, or somewhat answer.
lets see if you can answer some simple questions 😉
You don’t even know how to frame a rhetorical question to give the answer you want! That’s the level of intelligence we are dealing with here?
It would be a complete waste of time to try and explain to you that China’s industrial sector is infinitely more complex and dynamic then can be summed up as one homogenous entity. But seeing how you are just a breath away from slurring the entire Chinese race, I would not expect even such a basic level of higher reasoning to be something that you apply regularly, if at all, to anything that has the misfortune of having your attention turned to. :rolleyes:
plawolflol, so any user from India who questions the claims of a nationalist wanting revenge for a war. again using the race card 😉
I guess that sums up you in a nutshell – trying to shoehorn everything into a small number of pre-fabricated stereotypes based on the most superficial of evidence and wishful thinking. Ante_climax has already proven beyond doubt that he nurses an unhealthy level of animosity towards China because of 1962 and bases his views on extreme right propaganda sites like Newsmax.
I would ask you to look up the appropriate thread, but the posts in question have long since been removed by the mods.
notice how these nationalists, instead of saying Yes, China’s industry copied the Su-27, or No they did not.. they go off on a tangent bringing in faulty comparisons like assuming the development of ancient chinese rockets to jet engines is the same as the development of an aircraft being reversed engineered from another aircraft.. or the continuing insecurity in which the same nationalists think the west, india, the rest of the world is out to belittle China and then go off a tangent and bring in things like US-torture, etc when it has nothing to do with China’s aircrafts.
Such a basic and clumsy schoolboy attempt at smearing that makes generalization look sophisticated. One really wonders what age group you are trying to pitch your rants to, because the majority of kids who can read would be able to see right through your nonsense.
Looking at the history of your posts, you are the biggest China military apologist of them all..
As if we needed more proof of your complete inability to grasp the english language.
plawolflol yes, so all those reversed engineered missiles, airplanes, etc China has produced was because China wanted to do things the hard way rather than taking the easy route and make something from scratch 🙂
More blind BS. What has China reverse engineered that was not from the cold war? :rolleyes:
I guess you think the development of the J-11B must’ve been much harder than the development of the J-10.
yes, reverse engineering is a bigger accomplishment than doing your own R&D towards an original design. yes that makes much sense.
Well, just when I thought you couldn’t know any less about engineering, you go and undercut my most pessimistic expectations. Guess that serves me right for assuming everyone here was at least pretending to pay attention in science class at primary school. :rolleyes:
plawolfYou’re the one that brought up laws! I just proved to you laws are broken by the very people who make them up. So your argument that there are laws now which label as stealing is not that same as when the West was stealing from China hundreds of years ago is your own flaw. Again. now your logic doesn’t work for you, you don’t like it.
Just ignore the troll. He has no interest other then trying to get his vengeance for 1962.
plawolflol yes, because all copies have to be 100% exact, and any other copy that ends up being superior or inferior cannot be considered a copy at all right.
Learn to read first because that is not what I said or what I meant. Or is this just more projecting with your seeing what you want to see instead of what is actually the case?
so if I bought a J-10, then reversed engineered it to something that looks like the J-10.. but put in my own engines and radar.. its not a J-10 copy anymore right? 🙂
If you knew anything at all about engineering, you would realize that it would take far more effort to reverse engineer something then to designing a similar item from scratch, provided you have the right skills and equipment to start with.
I guess the Tu-4 is not a B-29 copy since it uses an Shvetsov ASh-73 thats an improvement over the original engine, and the Russians were quite mature and self confident of themselves when they did that 🙂
So now who is the one shooting off on a tangent to bring in completely irrelevant things? :rolleyes:
You are so far out of your depth its not even funny. :rolleyes:
plawolfdenial nationalists blah blah blah
The only one with insecurity issues is you, and the reason you are so quick to jump to completely illogical conclusions and go off on random rants is nothing more then you projecting your own problems on others.
China does not copy stuff as you or a child might copy someone else’s sentient and repeat them regardless of appropriateness, China merely refuses to do the vain thing and re-invent the wheel just in order to make superficial changes to pass a copy off as something original. Instead Chinese engineers choose to focus their time and resources improving on the original. That is a sign of maturity and self confidence, not incompetence and a lack of imagination as those with ulterior motives desperately tries to make it out as at every opportunity.
plawolflol, don’t forget that all those flanker variants that are not numbered with a 27 for export, are still numbered 27 at home. Su-35 = su-27m, su-33 = su27k.
You can try and spin it whatever way you want, but was clear which flanker the Russian official quoted in the OP was referring to.
All your flippant remarks and childish photos serve to do is highlight the fact that you are not interested in finding out facts, but merely to broadcast your pre-formed views. :rolleyes:
plawolfit is quite sad that the country which once had a unique culture and civilization that inspired many of its neighbors to copy them, is now the center of copying everything from military aircraft, buildings, dvds, electronics etc.
I’ll take my mig-21 copy, along with some knock off Sornys, Panaphonics, and Abibas shoes 🙂
Its only shallow individuals who take one look at the exterior and make conclusions based on superficial analysis and wishful thinking to suit their own axe grinding needs.
The J11B looks like a Su27, but so does a Su35.
The J11B is not a clone of anything as some would dearly wish, it is the result of taking an inspired airframe and stripping out all the soviet era baggage to replace it all with the best SAC can produce at a reasonable price, in order to give the Flanker a fighting chance against J10s and so justify their continued existence within the PLAAF.
The J11B is not a clone of the Su27, it is a refinement of it, much like the Su35 is, and that is why the Russians are so worried. Maybe not because the J11B is better then the Su35, but because it represents a serious alternative to the Superflanker that no clone of a cold war era SK could ever hope to be.
plawolfThe Harrier.
Look at the mess the RN is in right now, having to ‘borrow’ USMC harriers to land and fly off their carriers for deck crew training.
An unique CAS plane that demanded respect in air combat, it could and should have sold more.
plawolfThere’s a difference. SK and Japan could take an LHP and make a carrier pretty quick and easy if they wanted the F-35B, a STOVL platform not requiring a lot of the effort that goes into making a serious carrier. Look at what England did during the Falklands with Harriers on container ships. Same basic idea, large flat area for VTOL capable fighter jet. Making an actual fast jet carrier along the lines of Kuznetsov or Nimitz is a far different proposition for a lot of reasons, many of them having to do with the non-STOVL airwing.
I’m sure SK and Japan could design and build proper carriers if they so wished, just like China. That was not what I took issue with.
What I found incredulous was that Scooter would suggest that the notion he dreamed up in the course of this discussion that SK and Japan might enlarge their LHP designs and turn them into mini-carriers had the same weight of evidence as China planning to build carriers. Thats just plain nonsense. I have already listed just a part of the evidence publicly available that points to China’s carrier ambitions and plans. The only thing that even hints at the mere possibility of SK or Japan enlarging their LHPs is what Scooter himself wrote in this thread. There is no comparison between the level of credibility of the two different possibilities.
Could China build two carriers by 2015? With the right shipyard space it’s certainly possible. It’s also possible that they have an issue or find a design problem while working and have one or none complete by 2015. This is something they haven’t done before. There is no ligical reason to reject the latter posibility outright, because like I said, they haven’t done this before. Sure, with Russian help and with the Varyag to pore over (the two Kievs are not likely to be much help) they could certainly do it. They aren’t stupid enough to claim that they want two by 2015 when they know there’s no chance in hell that they can pull it off, there’s no reason to make that absurd of a claim in that context. So if they say they want two by 2015, they have likely looked at it and think they can do it. But completely discounting the possibility that they might encounter some issues or have to correct a problem delaying the second vessel is just ignorant.
They can do it. But stating that because they can unequivocally means that they definitely will is not very bright and is indicative of a degree of ignorance relating to the development and production of large scale military hardware.
Well I would respectfully ask you to also read what I have written.
Nowhere did I state that China 100% will have two carriers built by 2015.
All I have done was point out that it is well within China’s capability to build two carriers by 2015 if they so chose, and point out the gaping logical black hole in the arguments of those who keep bring up the CdG. Just because France encountered problems in their carrier design and construction is no indication that the same thing will happen to China. It is those who insist that China cannot possibly build two carriers in 6 years because XY&Z takes AB&C years to build their carriers who are far more deserving of your accusations of ignorance.
plawolfSource – Random House Webster’s Dictionary
Propaganda: information or ideas methodically spread to promote or injure a cause, nation, etc.
Sigh, some people can’t even find out what one single word means by looking it up in a dictionary. :rolleyes:
The proper definition:
“Propaganda is the dissemination of information aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the cognitive narrative of the subject in the target audience to further a political agenda.”
Who is the one who conveniently left out all the facts presented in this very thread and made the pronouncement that there is ‘no facts’ to suggest that China might build carriers?
Who is the one here trying to make this thread one about an arms race at every turn?
Who was the one comparing China to Imperial Japan and Nazi German?
From the facts, it looks like your repeated attempts to derail the topic fits the bill of ‘propaganda’ far better then what I have been doing.
plawolfAll I want to see is PLAWolf and his ilk admit that they could be wrong. We might be wrong and China may have these ships afloat and in service by 2014. I personally do not think so but I can admit that I could be wrong. PLAWolf is so sure that he is right that he is not willing to entertain any other outcome.
Get off your arrogant high horse sir and at least admit you could be off the mark.
You either cannot read or the above is just plain BS.
Go back and find one place where me or my ‘ilk’ have said that China will have two carriers build by 2015.
For the benefit of those hard of reading, I will sum up. All I have ever done was to pick holes in the arguments of those who insist that China cannot possibly build two carriers in 6 years and show them that it is perfectly feasible. Nowhere had I ever said that that will be the case for definite.
Sign In
