chinawhiteremaining posts in the discussion. :rolleyes:
Which has nothing to do with that statement or the subject.
chinawhiteIs there even anythign worth responding to
“Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.”
-Dilbert’s Rules of Order
your trying to drag me to your level and beat me with your experience. Its just filled with Personal attacks and nothing which hints to what i have asked. I ASKED FOR A SOURCE
More lies. Point out where I said this.
I quoted you and you edited it out after. Dont think i would miss that 😉
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1015315&postcount=29
chinawhiteYou know, ‘can have’ and ‘will have ‘ mean different things in english.
He said it subjectivley
As in “I can do it” – It will ahppen
Not “It can happen” – It might happen
chinawhiteThis post says that the MMR is a weakness. I respond with this
pointing out that the LCAs MMR is perfectly suitable for its role. Bringiton responds with this, again speaking of AESA vs Slotted array in general, which I reply with this and this clearly avoiding mentioning the JF-17 and J-10 because it would have you screaming yourself hoarse, YET you persist.
Be careful when you edit posts,, people could miss things when you edit so much.
Thank god, that explains nothing more than what i already knew
One question only
Which aircraft were you refering to when you said “the LCA can have the first look” . Thats the ONLY thing i want to know from you now
chinawhiteA magician holds the coin with one hand while diverting the audiences attention with another. Dont try to divert this to another topic. It ahs nothing to do with bringitons post, its has everything to do with the claim “the LCA can have the first look”
Funny, I am the one providing sources
It would help if you source was the correct one, You have provide one picture produced in paint and claiming it is some how a source?. I clearly asked for a SOURCE(not picture) with a statement about the indians originally intending for the LCA to feature LO features, which you did not bring
I ask for statements from the design stage not when the project was done and dusted when they claimed they have added stealth features. One example of this is the 03 FC-1 and the 04 FC-1 when its DSI and LEXs were added after the design stage. Giving me some “Paint” made picture and telling me to look under the speech bubble is not a source, nor anything remote to what i was looking for
You CLAIMED the LCA will have first look, yet you are trying to change this fact. I reposonded to that post, not any other post which has nothing to do with the original one.
Surely, you wouldn’t be refering to the F-22, JSF, EF, or rafale. And you were certainly refering to one aircraft which would have to be the J-10 since this topic sentence is about the LCA and the J-10.
Awesome, more personal attacks. Insults work in kindergarten
kindergarten aye?
Maybe you should work on yours, this is the list of your personal attacks, BEFORE you edited you first two(which contained the most)
– Are you blind?
– Cant you read them now?
– Dont be stupid
– If you can go back up and read
– your statements make my eyes bleed.
– Perhaps reading comprehension lessons should help?
– But never mind, keep jumping at imaginary shadows!
– I spelt it out clearly, now do you understand?
– Wow. And you want “sources”. Priceless!!
– Or have you forgotten how to read, again?
– there really is no limit to your drivel again
– all you have done is post more and more of your drivel
– That you continue to do so, speaks volumes about your attitude.
– or is the meaning too hard for you to understand,
– Take that chip off your shoulder will you?
– More nonsense from you
– you need a crash course in basic logic!!
– The one being ludicrous here is you
– Perhaps in the world that you inhabit
chinawhiteApart from these two sentences below, you have absolutly nothing worth replying to.
“Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.”
-Dilbert’s Rules of Order
Thats where this is heading since you tried to lure me with your constant bickering
Look at my replies to Bringiton where I have mentioned the aircraft types as well.
Im not talking about brigitons post, i quoted you BEFORE you posted to bringiton. It has nothing to do with his post and stop bringing them up. Unless you have trouble understanding basic sentence structure and the words coming out.
Nonsense. You picked up a single statement, twisted its meaning out of context and tried to dance around it.
What other meaning could this have?????
“””And the LCA we must remember is an extremely small aircraft, plus is designed to have a low RCS. So the LCA can have the first look advantage“””
You claimed that the LCA will have first look, which you have not proven to be true, all you have done is listed some design features which supposely decease the RCS. You have not proven it can get a first look
UNDERSTAND NOW?????????????.
Its only taken 1 day :rolleyes:
chinawhiteWow. And you want “sources”. Priceless!! :rolleyes:
Did i claim anything 😉 . I did not do the claiming, you did.
All i did was give you a direction towards the truth, because me and you both know nothing about the true figures for the J-10s RCS.
What part of my statement was false? :confused: 🙂
chinawhiteIf you pick & choose single lines from my posts and give a different meaning as compared to the context in which they were used, then a) you misread or b) you did so deliberately.
Can you please outline which aircraft you were refering to?
“””And the LCA we must remember is an extremely small aircraft, plus is designed to have a low RCS. So the LCA can have the first look advantage”””
And please, that is a sentence which contains a CONTENTION
There is nothing out of context here, you have claimed that the LCA will have first look on presumerly the J-10. Why the J-10, because you wouldn’t be claiming the EF, F-22, JSF, or rafale. But also the topic is about a J-10 vs LCA situation as outlineded by the topic header
There was no different meaning, I read it very clearly and quoted your whole sentence this time
So next time, if you didnt do that, it would be a better thing.
So what the hell does this mean???. Yeah mis-repersentation :rolleyes:
“”
“””And the LCA we must remember is an extremely small aircraft, plus is designed to have a low RCS. So the LCA can have the first look advantage””””””
Because i am chinese and you are indian, you tried to turn this into a ethnic orientated debate
You will say that bar China nobody else knows the J-10s true RCS
Maybe the russians, maybe the koreans, maybe the americans all know.
But all WE know is speculation, which you tried to lie your way through
You could have edited! A little civility goes a long way when you expect the same in return. :rolleyes:
So you started off your post with degoratory comments and your talking about civility
Edited what?
chinawhiteRumours, yeas…where did I hear them? It recal it was the company’s horsemens who heard it from the ambulance driver (little bit finnish military humour :p )
Gollevainen,
No finnish mind games this time. All i want to know is who or where you heard this rumour from.
Reason – Because i never heard it before
chinawhiteThank you for editing your post five ways to monday, While claiming i cant read.
get into a tizzy because you felt offended!
I was not offended at that. I was offened at all those comments you edited out before.
I was talking about an indian RCS for the J-10 not chinas RCS figure for the J-10
read what I said to Bringiton-
I quoted your post BEFORE that post
chinawhiteNow since you have bought this issue up, please tell me the J-10’s RCS?
Sure
Inbetween a B-52 and a F-22
chinawhiteIf you can go back up and read, I said while designing the aircraft.
I was not hoping for statements from you, but offical statements at the design stage. Difference between that?
Have you looked or calculated RCS vs detection charts?
How can you caluculate without RCS figures?. At best, unoffical charts developed by forum members
Care to point out where I said J-10 in my previous post?
Its not what you said, its what you did not have to say.
quote from you
“”the LCA can have the first look advantage”””
First look advantage at F-22, EF, rafale, JSF?
I doubt you would claim any of the above. Look at the topic heading
chinawhiteDid i read you post correctly before?
It was full of derogatory remarks, which i did not respond to then but was going to make note of
Glad you cleaned up your act 😉
chinawhiteWeight reduction played a role in the LCA design but so did signature reduction.
Was this after they designed the aircraft or before? :rolleyes:
Dont be stupid. If you read into the context, its clear what I was referring to.
You said the LCA is “an extremely small aircraft” and uses radar reducation features so it will have first look. But wait, did you just assume that the LCA has the lower RCS signiture and assume that the radars being used will be equivalent?
ADA has publically stated that the LCA has a third of the signature of a regular fighter in a seminar.
The fighter was the Mirage-2000, and that has no bearing on a LCA and J-10 discussion since the J-10s airframe was not compared by ADA to use as a example
chinawhiteJoey, they are eventual progressions. But by the time that happens, the F-16 or whatever plane will have already gone through another technology cycle (block upgrade).
Not doubt if you fit all the best technology avaible into a fighter it will become formidable. People might scoff at the idea of the LCA matching the Block 70 F-16 EVER but when the LCA reaches its next cycle it will at least match its technology.
One failing the indians made was to make the fighter to small, which inhibits its competitiveness. Theres only so much weapons you can fit onto that little airframe, thats why i think the LCA will be produced in limited quanities while the MCA will be the fighter which will be inducted in larger numbers since there is more possibilty of upgrades with a larger twin engine fighter
Sign In
