aircraft——J-10 vs F-22 (lol wat?)

[gambit]

Does the student know that the fight is rigged?

Yes. This is about setting INITIAL conditions favorable or unfavorable to the student to simulate the unpredictability of air combat when sides meet.

 

[ChengDao]

Then what is the problem? Why is your comment so defensive? I may not have known about this device, but it still doesn't change my original point, the F-22 was shot down by what many people claim is an inferior fighter

And as for the "ignorant" comment, whether or not you were being rude, I suggest you refrain from such comments in the future. Who knows, you may end up angering a mod.

Just ignore that troll haha. Gambit is a viet who always spews crap on China related posts. Funny thing is, he pretends to be an American veteran and jet expert

 

[Lure]

- If Mike Tyson have both hands tied and you knocked him out, does that mean you are the equal of Mike Tyson?

This is what I have been trying to explained to you: That the exercise was RIGGED.

Well as far as what I understand from the text there is a problem with your analogy. It's not like you tie Mike Tyson's hands and knocking him out. It's like tying both fighters' hands and see where that goes. Of course Tyson wins when he punches. But if we forbid punching to two fighters (equal conditions) than the other fighter wins. It's not a rigged exercise since there is no certain advantage that favors one opponent. They both start equally on an environment with certain rules.

Well Germans try to prove something. I don't know if they're right or wrong since I'm not in the industry. They say that all this 5th generation fighter jet issue is just a marketing tag. They don't really see a lot of difference between a gen 4+ jet like Eurofighter and 5th gen jet like F-22.

Well as of today they seem to be wrong. Because F-22 has a huge BVR advantage. But Germans proved that Eurofighter is better WVR and with a gas tank half loaded (lol). So let's brainstorm here. With IRST systems Eurofighters can detect stealth planes that are 50 km away. But BVR missles (I guess both sides uses the same) has a range of 100 km. And let's not forget that Eurofighter is a low observable plane as well which makes it non deterministic for F-22 to detect. Since it's a stealth plane F-22 will definitely not be detected unless it's 50 km close to a Eurofighter.

So for a Eurofighter to shoot down an F-22 there needs to be;

- It shouldn't be detected until it gets close enough (50 km). Which is by chance by the way since you can't locate F-22. So you don't know where to go. You just "blindly" look for your opponent and pray for a signal from IRST. (Should be a very bad psychology I must say). And since you are a low observable plane there is probability that you might be detected by your enemy. Which makes you more nervous.

- If you are detected within 50-100 km distance by an F-22 probability of kill is high. Of course you have countermeasures or BVR missles has a certain probability of kill (as far as I know it doesn't kill 100%) but you will most probably die. Since you don't see your enemy and your enemy sees you your enemy will have multiple chances to kill you so one of them will probably do the job.

- If you're not detected and get close enough (it's a low probability I might add) you probably will start a dogfight and you might have a good chance of a kill.

Hence I wouldn't want to be in a low observable plane when fighting with a stealth plane. What you can't see you can't hit.

 

[madmusti]

I love that Chinese Propaganda

 

[gambit]

Well as far as what I understand from the text there is a problem with your analogy. It's not like you tie Mike Tyson's hands and knocking him out. It's like tying both fighters' hands and see where that goes. Of course Tyson wins when he punches. But if we forbid punching to two fighters (equal conditions) than the other fighter wins. It's not a rigged exercise since there is no certain advantage that favors one opponent. They both start equally on an environment with certain rules.

Here is where you are wrong...Seriously wrong...

Low radar observability is not something you can turn on/off. The F-22's shaping is part of its design. So if we install a device that enhances its radar return, we have effectively handicapped its major feature. If we do nothing to the opposition to compensate for what we did to the F-22, then it is like tying Mike Tyson's hands while leaving his opponent free.

About rigged tests and exercises...If you test your newly designed car only on sunny days, you have effectively rigged your tests. There is nothing wrong with that. You are controlling the input of a variable -- rain. You are not certain how your car would perform in the rain, so you would incrementally introduce water, first in the form of puddles, then sprays, then rain. With each test you predict what would happen if you introduce the next variable, and if your prediction failed when the real variable is introduced, then you do not introduce any more variables. You stay at that point and investigate on why the results did not match your prediction.

War games are no different in principle. You control variables that are known to exists in warfare and individual combat to train your warfighters on how to deal with these predictable and unpredictable factors. Is there a factor that is both predictable and unpredictable? You bet: A reserve force. You can bet that in any engagement, both sides have reserve forces. What is unpredictable is how and where a reserve force will be deployed.

So if we install radar enhancers on the F-22, we have removed a known factor from the exercise -- 'stealth'. That is like tying Mike Tyson's hands, which are known factors.

Well Germans try to prove something. I don't know if they're right or wrong since I'm not in the industry. They say that all this 5th generation fighter jet issue is just a marketing tag. They don't really see a lot of difference between a gen 4+ jet like Eurofighter and 5th gen jet like F-22.

There is no committee sitting around setting criteria on what is '5th gen' fighter. The Germans and the rest of the world can call the F-22 a 'piece of sh1t' for all we care. If anything, we encourage people to underestimate US. It will make their defeat and embarrassment that much more delicious.

Well as of today they seem to be wrong. Because F-22 has a huge BVR advantage. But Germans proved that Eurofighter is better WVR and with a gas tank half loaded (lol). So let's brainstorm here. With IRST systems Eurofighters can detect stealth planes that are 50 km away. But BVR missles (I guess both sides uses the same) has a range of 100 km. And let's not forget that Eurofighter is a low observable plane as well which makes it non deterministic for F-22 to detect. Since it's a stealth plane F-22 will definitely not be detected unless it's 50 km close to a Eurofighter.

In your dream. I have explained plenty on why a single vertical stabilator aircraft cannot be 'stealthy'. I suggest you use the search feature and educate yourself. Prior to my participation here, there were all kinds of talk about how to make this and that fighter 'stealthy'. Now that kind of talk is pretty much dead.

 

[Lure]

Here is where you are wrong...Seriously wrong...

Low radar observability is not something you can turn on/off. The F-22's shaping is part of its design. So if we install a device that enhances its radar return, we have effectively handicapped its major feature. If we do nothing to the opposition to compensate for what we did to the F-22, then it is like tying Mike Tyson's hands while leaving his opponent free.

About rigged tests and exercises...If you test your newly designed car only on sunny days, you have effectively rigged your tests. There is nothing wrong with that. You are controlling the input of a variable -- rain. You are not certain how your car would perform in the rain, so you would incrementally introduce water, first in the form of puddles, then sprays, then rain. With each test you predict what would happen if you introduce the next variable, and if your prediction failed when the real variable is introduced, then you do not introduce any more variables. You stay at that point and investigate on why the results did not match your prediction.

War games are no different in principle. You control variables that are known to exists in warfare and individual combat to train your warfighters on how to deal with these predictable and unpredictable factors. Is there a factor that is both predictable and unpredictable? You bet: A reserve force. You can bet that in any engagement, both sides have reserve forces. What is unpredictable is how and where a reserve force will be deployed.

So if we install radar enhancers on the F-22, we have removed a known factor from the exercise -- 'stealth'. That is like tying Mike Tyson's hands, which are known factors.


There is no committee sitting around setting criteria on what is '5th gen' fighter. The Germans and the rest of the world can call the F-22 a 'piece of sh1t' for all we care. If anything, we encourage people to underestimate US. It will make their defeat and embarrassment that much more delicious.


In your dream. I have explained plenty on why a single vertical stabilator aircraft cannot be 'stealthy'. I suggest you use the search feature and educate yourself. Prior to my participation here, there were all kinds of talk about how to make this and that fighter 'stealthy'. Now that kind of talk is pretty much dead.

First of all cut this "educate yourself" crap. You're not in a position to judge people's knowledge here. I've told you I'm not in the industry. I'm a computer scientist working in the R&D department of a multinational company. My area of expertise is different. I'm just reading articles and trying to make contributions here with my own judgement like everybody else in here. This is not a technicians forum. If you are looking for such a forum this is the wrong place. Period. If such a tone continues I will completely ignore you, if you want to go on a civil discussion with me please watch your tone.

Second, the text doesn't say anything about installing radar enhancers to F-22. It just says in a case where both planes started fighting WVR and both planes had low amount of fuel than Eurofighter had an advantage over F-22. This article claims that within a 50 km range, Eurofighters IRST system detected the location of F-22. But states nothing about F-22's with radar enhancers installed. If another text states that case, you're welcome to show it. But there is another problem with that. Why the hell do I need to put a radar enhancer to F-22 if I can locate them in 50 km range, and the battle case specifically states that we are fighting WVR.

If F-22's are installed with radar enhancers and Eurofighters used this advantage than the exercise is rigged. If not than it is not. It's just a specific test case. Trust me I know the difference between a rigged exercise and a test case. There is the posibility that in order to track F-22's better from the ground (since this is an exercise) USAF may install radar enhancers to F-22 but Eurofighters didn't use this advantage since they are fighting WVR and WVR they can track F-22's with their IRST so they didn't use radar enhancer as an advantage.

And for the Eurofighter being low obersvable issue. Eurofighters carry some stealth features. But they are not completely stealth from every aspect like F-22's. But from my understanding it's non-deterministic to detect them either. You need radar reflections from certain angles which you might or might not catch. First of all try to understand what I write than make comments. And why the hack should I dream about Eurofighter being stealth? It's not my nation's plane. It's not a plane of a nation that is hostile to USA either. Both planes belongs to the western pact. We're just making comparisons.

Btw Germans do not to underestimate US. And I don't predict any German-US war which German air force might be defeated and emberass themselves. It's just that German aviation industry doesn't believe in 5th generation jet planes. Another major contributer of Eurofighter -BAE- thinks otherwise and they joined F-35 project. Don't be a partisan. Such scientific discussions occur everywhere. And of course there is no committee decision of 5th generation airplanes. But there are certain standarts. Stating obvious won't make you seem smarter than you're. Just please change this tone of discussion.

 

[Mosamania]

The Americans are relying heavily on stealth and radars as well as shooting down enemy before contact.

The American fighters are not really maneuverable as they are built to never engage in dog fights. As the F-22s and F-35s are really more of a bomber in the sense that they are the first wave of attack to destroy all ground air defenses to allow non stealth fighters to become a factor.

So if somehow the J-10s can actually engage the F-22s it is highly likely it'll have the advantage.

 

[gambit]

First of all cut this "educate yourself" crap. You're not in a position to judge people's knowledge here. I've told you I'm not in the industry. I'm a computer scientist working in the R&D department of a multinational company. My area of expertise is different. I'm just reading articles and trying to make contributions here with my own judgement like everybody else in here. This is not a technicians forum. If you are looking for such a forum this is the wrong place. Period. If such a tone continues I will completely ignore you, if you want to go on a civil discussion with me please watch your tone.

Wrong. We all judge each other here based upon what we say for the public to read. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you stay off discussion forums.

While this is not a technically oriented forum, least of all because of the extra sensitive nature of the many subjects questioned/discussed, some relevant technical information must be presented in order to make one's argument reasonably credible. With my arguments, I usually presented credible sources to support my them. Sources that ranges from free such as NASA to pay-walled such as IEEE. I also often provide key word search so anyone can verify my claim. If I have to bring in IEEE, I will at least quote the free abstract that contains those key words so those who cannot afford to pay IEEE can see that there is a serious and technical organization where people deposits their research that involves the concepts hinted by those key words. Based upon this, I also have never violated OpSec by posting classified information, of which despite my out of the USAF for years, I still possess many technical information that are 'Top Secret'.

To date, no one has ever returned to this forum and show everyone that I lied or misled people. No one.

This is a publicly accessible forum where your words and mine are available for all to see, so ignoring me will do you no good. If you say something that is false or came from ignorance because you do not have relevant experience in the subject, then I will correct you. The Chinese members here learned that lesson the hard way when I demolished their claims. I suggest you calm down and not take the word 'ignorance' so personal.

Second, the text doesn't say anything about installing radar enhancers to F-22. It just says in a case where both planes started fighting WVR and both planes had low amount of fuel than Eurofighter had an advantage over F-22. This article claims that within a 50 km range, Eurofighters IRST system detected the location of F-22. But states nothing about F-22's with radar enhancers installed. If another text states that case, you're welcome to show it. But there is another problem with that. Why the hell do I need to put a radar enhancer to F-22 if I can locate them in 50 km range, and the battle case specifically states that we are fighting WVR.

The article does not have to literally state that enhancers were installed but since I have already shown what the device looks like and how it can be seen in a HUD camera, it would be intellectually dishonest to dismiss my argument.

Infrared detection does not give ranging information but only general direction/location information. To date, the best sensor to give these vital target resolutions...

- Direction/location
- Speed
- Altitude
- Heading
- Aspect angle

...Is still radar. What this mean is that in order for this exercise to be within visual range, the F-22's opponent must be guided in and that the F-22 must allowed such guidance in order for the exercise to be effective at instructions. That guidance/allowance can be from a third party like an AWACS controller or it can be from the F-22 itself via enhancer and the F-22's pilot.

And for the Eurofighter being low obersvable issue. Eurofighters carry some stealth features. But they are not completely stealth from every aspect like F-22's. But from my understanding it's non-deterministic to detect them either. You need radar reflections from certain angles which you might or might not catch.

Then your understanding is flawed. Any body that is not specifically designed to reduce (not eliminate) radar reflections from popular freqs used will be deterministic. For pre F-117 bodies, the only body that present difficulties in detection in the X-band at 150-200 km distance is a clean F-16. Clean as in no external fuel tanks, no external underwing weapons, and only two Sidewinders. This config is the 'official unofficial' standard for 'stealth', meaning if the body is to be considered 'stealthy' its configuration must be cleaner than a clean F-16. The Eurofighter can have whatever 'stealthy' features but as long as it flies with external stores, it will be detected.

 

[S.Y.A]

fight! fight ! fight! fight!

 

[Lure]

Wrong. We all judge each other here based upon what we say for the public to read. If you have a problem with that, then I suggest you stay off discussion forums.

While this is not a technically oriented forum, least of all because of the extra sensitive nature of the many subjects questioned/discussed, some relevant technical information must be presented in order to make one's argument reasonably credible. With my arguments, I usually presented credible sources to support my them. Sources that ranges from free such as NASA to pay-walled such as IEEE. I also often provide key word search so anyone can verify my claim. If I have to bring in IEEE, I will at least quote the free abstract that contains those key words so those who cannot afford to pay IEEE can see that there is a serious and technical organization where people deposits their research that involves the concepts hinted by those key words. Based upon this, I also have never violated OpSec by posting classified information, of which despite my out of the USAF for years, I still possess many technical information that are 'Top Secret'.

To date, no one has ever returned to this forum and show everyone that I lied or misled people. No one.

This is a publicly accessible forum where your words and mine are available for all to see, so ignoring me will do you no good. If you say something that is false or came from ignorance because you do not have relevant experience in the subject, then I will correct you. The Chinese members here learned that lesson the hard way when I demolished their claims. I suggest you calm down and not take the word 'ignorance' so personal.

Wrong answer sorry. What kind of a stupid ego is that. This is a forum and I don't need to read your comments to make another comment. What are you a fascist? "Intellectual dishonesty" in a forum. Well I think you seem to be isolated from all kinds of real intellectual communities and try to make defence.pk like one. Which is son, is not one.

You don't even have the ability to understand what you read. I didn't say anything about IRST giving the range information, I said it gives the location. Than why are you replying something that I didn't tell so? Why are you deliberetly misleading what I've said. From what I see you are a better politician than a technician.

The manufacturers count many features that decreases the RCS of Eurofghter. Than if it's deterministic to catch Eurofighter (which means you detect a Eurofighter in every case that is possible from every direction) than why did they bother reducing RCS? You claimed Chinese engineers were stupid and taking measures for "imaginary" problems which we have discussed before. Now you claim this for German and British ones. I'm sorry but I am not going to talk to a twisted mind anymore. You have huge problems. And I thank God that a large portion of Americans are not like you and they are still communicateable.

By the way a feedback to you. I have read some of your discussions with the Chinese members. Sorry but you seem like a racist, who is trying to find some sources (relevant or irrelevant) and make some pseudo-scientific claims (IEEE is a pretty good community. I'm actually one of the members. However when you post an article from IEEE that is not even close to what the other guy says make it still a pseudo-scientific discussion) and make noise/insult to win a discussion. You know what I don't believe you have worked in USAF anymore. You seem like a wanna-be high school student who wants to say long live USA in every comment. Racist. And don't take any of them personally. lol

 

[gambit]

Wrong answer sorry. What kind of a stupid ego is that. This is a forum and I don't need to read your comments to make another comment. What are you a fascist? "Intellectual dishonesty" in a forum. Well I think you seem to be isolated from all kinds of real intellectual communities and try to make defence.pk like one. Which is son, is not one.

The one with the outsize ego here is yours, buddy. No one, least of all me, said you have to respond to me. But the point that you completely missed is that it is useless for you to say on a publicly accessible forum that you will ignore me, as if the rest of the readers will be lemming like and follow your lead. If you say something that is false or from ignorance, you will be corrected whether you like it or not and whether you respond or not. The silent readers will decide on who is the more credible.

You don't even have the ability to understand what you read. I didn't say anything about IRST giving the range information, I said it gives the location. Than why are you replying something that I didn't tell so? Why are you deliberetly misleading what I've said. From what I see you are a better politician than a technician.

I have been debating this issue long enough to know that whenever a person bring on infrared detection, he is usually ignorant of the differences between active sensor (radar) versus passive sensor (infrared). He usually thinks that IR produces similar, if not the same, target resolutions as radar. It is always revealed that he get his knowledge from popular media articles than from genuine technical examination of those differences.

The manufacturers count many features that decreases the RCS of Eurofghter. Than if it's deterministic to catch Eurofighter (which means you detect a Eurofighter in every case that is possible from every direction) than why did they bother reducing RCS? You claimed Chinese engineers were stupid and taking measures for "imaginary" problems which we have discussed before. Now you claim this for German and British ones. I'm sorry but I am not going to talk to a twisted mind anymore. You have huge problems.

This is exactly what I mean when I said that someone posts from ignorance. And that is not being insulting.

I give you my favorite example of radar detection...

Since an aircraft is a finite body and a composite of many shapes that produces different radiating mechanisms, the goal of radar cross section CONTROL, not reduction, is to achieve as much as possible a balance of those radiating mechanisms. RCS reduction is a bit misleading. It is not wrong to use it and even engineers in the field uses it casually as well. But control is the more precise descriptor.

In the example above, assume that the aircraft's EM graph came from simulation and not from a real body. The simulation revealed that I have a large spike from the rear vertical and horizontal stabilators configuration. Also obvious is a cluster of spikes from the three engine pods. The question now is where to focus the RCS control methods. Lockheed established these guidelines long ago with the F-117. Do I focus on the engine pods or on redesigning the rear flight control surfaces configuration? Common sense dictate that I should focus on the highest radiating factor on the body. Yes, I could also assign teams to work on other areas to control their contributorships but as long there is a dominant radiator, I should understand that seeking radars will automatically home in on this dominant radiator.

If the Eurofighter have RCS control methods on certain parts of its body, it was done with the hope that the fighter's RCS will be small enough to certain less capable radars, but its designers are under no illusions that those methods are of any good against the more capable American radars. Radar detection is essentially stochastical, fancy word for statistics. Yes, it is non-determistic but only to a degree. Those spikes are also clustered and against a background like the sky, that cluster will stand out clear enough to make detection assured.

And I thank God that a large portion of Americans are not like you and they are still communicateable.

Must have been a very small sampling.

By the way a feedback to you. I have read some of your discussions with the Chinese members. Sorry but you seem like a racist, who is trying to find some sources (relevant or irrelevant) and make some pseudo-scientific claims (IEEE is a pretty good community. I'm actually one of the members. However when you post an article from IEEE that is not even close to what the other guy says make it still a pseudo-scientific discussion) and make noise/insult to win a discussion. You know what I don't believe you have worked in USAF anymore. You seem like a wanna-be high school student who wants to say long live USA in every comment. Racist. And don't take any of them personally. lol

Another one who got suckered by the Chinese members here. You suspect me of being racist? Are you afraid of finding out how many of the Chinese members here got suspended for their racist posts? Looks like you are.

When the Chinese came on here, right around the J-20 came out, they started making claims that practically defied the laws of physics. Not one of them have any military experience or even associated background. I politely pointed out their errors and supported my arguments with impeccable sources. The response was swift and insulting. To the Chinese members here, the ONLY reason to challenge their claims, outrageous to the laws of nature as most were, is because the challenger is a racist. Then when they found out I was a Vietnamese-American, the insults got more personal and vile. And here you are calling me a racist.

Now that you know I am not a white American, feel free to descend to the gutter and use my origin in your posts.

 

[j20blackdragon]

Infrared detection does not give ranging information but only general direction/location information.

There's something called a laser rangefinder, which is oftentimes coupled to IRST.

 

[gambit]

There's something called a laser rangefinder, which is oftentimes coupled to IRST.

There are some things called 'clouds' and assorted weather phenomena as well.

 

[Lure]

The one with the outsize ego here is yours, buddy. No one, least of all me, said you have to respond to me. But the point that you completely missed is that it is useless for you to say on a publicly accessible forum that you will ignore me, as if the rest of the readers will be lemming like and follow your lead. If you say something that is false or from ignorance, you will be corrected whether you like it or not and whether you respond or not. The silent readers will decide on who is the more credible.

True. But the point is not being corrected. It's the tone of the discussion. That was the point I was making. Forum means you come and discuss. But with somebody with annoying tone you don't discuss. You simply ignore. I just asked you to check your tone.

I have been debating this issue long enough to know that whenever a person bring on infrared detection, he is usually ignorant of the differences between active sensor (radar) versus passive sensor (infrared). He usually thinks that IR produces similar, if not the same, target resolutions as radar. It is always revealed that he get his knowledge from popular media articles than from genuine technical examination of those differences.

Well I haven't. You can't just create a single category of people. Every people has their own background and ability/education for critical thinking and scientific judgement. Please never mislead what I write again.

This is exactly what I mean when I said that someone posts from ignorance. And that is not being insulting.

I give you my favorite example of radar detection...

Since an aircraft is a finite body and a composite of many shapes that produces different radiating mechanisms, the goal of radar cross section CONTROL, not reduction, is to achieve as much as possible a balance of those radiating mechanisms. RCS reduction is a bit misleading. It is not wrong to use it and even engineers in the field uses it casually as well. But control is the more precise descriptor.

In the example above, assume that the aircraft's EM graph came from simulation and not from a real body. The simulation revealed that I have a large spike from the rear vertical and horizontal stabilators configuration. Also obvious is a cluster of spikes from the three engine pods. The question now is where to focus the RCS control methods. Lockheed established these guidelines long ago with the F-117. Do I focus on the engine pods or on redesigning the rear flight control surfaces configuration? Common sense dictate that I should focus on the highest radiating factor on the body. Yes, I could also assign teams to work on other areas to control their contributorships but as long there is a dominant radiator, I should understand that seeking radars will automatically home in on this dominant radiator.

If the Eurofighter have RCS control methods on certain parts of its body, it was done with the hope that the fighter's RCS will be small enough to certain less capable radars, but its designers are under no illusions that those methods are of any good against the more capable American radars. Radar detection is essentially stochastical, fancy word for statistics. Yes, it is non-determistic but only to a degree. Those spikes are also clustered and against a background like the sky, that cluster will stand out clear enough to make detection assured.

Yeap that was the thing I was talking about and you said in your dreams. You can check my first comment when I was making a hypothetical simulation. The exact words I used was "Eurofighters also has low observable features and it's non deterministic for F-22's to detect them. However it is a fairly small probability. And you replied "in your dreams". Also you said my judgement was completely false. Now you state the same thing. That was what I was saying. You don't read clearly what I say try to understand it and reply, you simply discuss like you're fighting with me.

And by the way, stochastic is not the fancy way of saying statistics. Statistics is the study of modeling the possible outcomes from a certain dataset. Stochastic is a kind of system that is non-deterministic. Hence you can use stochastic and non-deterministic as synonyms but can't use stochastic and statistics.

Must have been a very small sampling.

I lived there for a certain period of time.

Another one who got suckered by the Chinese members here. You suspect me of being racist? Are you afraid of finding out how many of the Chinese members here got suspended for their racist posts? Looks like you are.

When the Chinese came on here, right around the J-20 came out, they started making claims that practically defied the laws of physics. Not one of them have any military experience or even associated background. I politely pointed out their errors and supported my arguments with impeccable sources. The response was swift and insulting. To the Chinese members here, the ONLY reason to challenge their claims, outrageous to the laws of nature as most were, is because the challenger is a racist.

As far as I see they don't make the claim. You make the claims. You constantly tell them their technologies are all crap and they try to prove the otherwise. If I were them I would think you're a troll and don't feed you.

Then when they found out I was a Vietnamese-American, the insults got more personal and vile. And here you are calling me a racist.

Now that you know I am not a white American, feel free to descend to the gutter and use my origin in your posts.

I'm pretty far left wing person. There is no race, religion, sexual identity that can distinguish people from eachother. Actually I was not going to reply you. But when you talked about your Vietnamese origin my respect to you is increased and decided to reply. Not decreased. Just please watch your tone and don't be biased about the every person you see.

 

[That Guy]

@Aeronaut

for the love of God, help me here! People keep derailing this thread!