China All Su-35 news

[peaceful]

Typhoon Virgilius? And you believe China doesn't have the capacity to build a comparable system?

 

[antonius123]

Yet you contradicted yourself again, and again. Taking some basic English classes could only benefit you. If you were trying to imply that China has the means to develop the Virgilous but has not yet done so you could have said it the way I just said it. There is a big difference between your spelling and mine, and that is your spelling is vague and simply unacceptable.

Which one I contradict myself?
I have shown you your idiocy and verbal problem that make u could not distinguish "r&d capability" and "capability in production"

In what part of my explanation that u dont understand?

And again I ask you: which spelling or grammatical mistake that make u not understand my explanation?

^^ Look at the above sentence, how can I not blame you? It is a catastrophe and an abomination to the English language. Don’t is a compound word and needs to be treated as such, the word on, is simply out of place, “ppl’ isn’t even a word and everything after “ppl” does not make any sense.

Oh really??? is it really catastrophe? or it is your english and poor comprehension problem? cmon.. dont make this up.

You only dispute trivial things but fail in basic logic and simple reading comprehension.
This is not writing competition nor thesis writing. This is forum for informal discussion!
Therefore I don't need to bother to write according to grammar perfectly.

Nowtell me which catastrophe that Ive made that make you difficult to comprehend my argumen? U could not keep blaming trivial things for your failure to understand.

Talking about grammar, you have made many mistakes, but I dont want to bother to show them to you because it is not point of my arguments; despite ur grammatical mistake I still have logic and comprehension capability to understand ur writing.

U should be shamed with ur excuse, coz it only demonstrates ur handicap in basic comprehension.

Or you could do everyone the favor of writing a coherent sentence, how does that sound?

I write: china has "r&d capability" to develop virgilius.

Now show me which mistaken grammar/sentence that I've made that cause you to think that r&d capability = production capability!

Pathetic excuse

Again you make no sense, by anything, I can only assume that you mean everything. And you saying China has the capability does not make it so.

Ur excuse is funny.... u sound like robot

I gave you plenty of examples, even in this very post.

Above examples??
Those only indicates ur idiocy.

I wrote: r&d capability, but u catch as production capability, then u blame on my grammar?
Noo... it is ur poor verbal capability, not my grammatical mistake

You have made the ridiculous claim that China, “can merely produce even without R&D”. I would love an explanation to that.

Yes china could produce without doing r&d, and it is not only china but other country could do the same.
That's why many US company do r&d in silicon valey and give their design to china for production.

I wonder if u are from engineering background?

I give u one example:
Do u know Foxconn produce Ipad 2 tablet for Apple?
Ipad 2 is not the result of Foxconn r&d, but Apple's r&d, however Apple doesnt produce Ipad at all. Apple give their design to foxconn for production.

It is surprising to know U have no clue about that

Wow, really? Are you that slow? I never stated that China does not intend to conduct research and development I asked you how China is able to produce defensive suits if they do not plan on spending time on ‘r&d’. Remember it was you that stated that a product can be produced without research and development.

I dont say that china could produce virgilius without r&d. I said r&d capability was not the same as production capability, because u were mixing both;

Of course for the virgilius case China need r&d to develop virgilius before she will be able to produce it, because nobody will give their r&d result to china.

It is u that is being slow to understand here, bcs u always failed to understand

I only quoted you a half dozen times on it.

No.. u misunderstood as always

After a public spanking over the internet you, of all people, have the audacity to question my verbal skills and reading comprehension? I aced English reading and writing in college. You would be lucky to pass an ESL class.

I doubt ur claim.
U always demonstrate your handicap in understanding ppl's (people's) argument. :p

U may have good grammar, but verbal capability require some logic and iq.

China is not capable of produce the Vergilous, as I stated it is unique and would be very difficult if not impossible to replicate it and not just for China. The Virgilous is an ECM, China can produce ECM’s, just not a Virgilous. You understand? Are will you try twist my sentence around again?

Besides inconsistency, ur explanation is not making sense at all.

Why the Typhoon Virgilous is so unique that science & technology superpower like China or USA cannot develop? it is ridiculous.

There is no rule in this universe that the "uniqueness of a technology" would prevent a country especially country like china or usa with strong r&d capability to develop it.

Cmon... this is not myth forum

China's capability to develop the fastest bullet train and fastest supercomputer has proved that the there is no uniqueness in technology that other country cannot reach, then automatically debunk ur ridiculous myth

Don’t lecture me on research and development and producing a system. It is not possible to produce anything without research and development unless someone transfers the technology and know how.

I said: r&d capability is not the same as production capability.

Because u said china should be able to produce virgilius if china has r&d capability to develop virgilius, which is wrong; and ur mistake indicates u dont understand the meaning of the phrase "r&d capability"

Yes, it is very much proven. You are a liar.

Nope. u only prove ur failure to comprehend other ppl's argument

My argument clearly explained why it would be nearly impossible for anyone to replicate something to have identical capabilities and performance. There was even an engineer on this forum that had worked with military equipment that claimed it would be very difficult to copy something to exact specification. If it is difficult to copy something than how do you plan to copy or replicate the performance of a system that you do not posses? And as stated earlier even if two systems look very similar and on paper have similar performance it does not mean they will perform similarly. Again lets take radars for an example, lets say we have two x band radars with 1,500 TR modules. One may think that they are similar in performance because they have identical specifications yet one may change frequencies at a much greater rate, while the other may have overheating issues and be forced to run on a fraction of the available TR modules.

Again u are demonstrating ur comprehension problem.
I never said china will 100% copy virgilius, I said: "china has r&d capability to develop it!"

Why it is so difficult for you to understand simple sentence?
maybe they are not identical in specification, but could have the same or even better performance.

I have shown u about how china develop the fastest bullet train and the fastest supercomputer to you many times, remember?

 

[antonius123]

Typhoon Virgilius? And you believe China doesn't have the capacity to build a comparable system?

That guy cannot distinguish his own BELIEF (myth) and FACT

 

[ao333]

Why are you guys debating with an Asian-Russian? His opinions does not reflect those of white Russia. He is descriminated in Russia.

It is like debating with a Vietnamese/Indian-American. They will hate you no matter what; and they're not Americans.

 

[ptldM3]

Which one I contradict myself?
I have shown you your idiocy and verbal problem that make u could not distinguish "r&d capability" and "capability in production"

In what part of my explanation that u dont understand?

And again I ask you: which spelling or grammatical mistake that make u not understand my explanation?

Once again you keep ranting on about verbal problems but you still can not compile a half coherent sentence. It was also you that claimed that it is possible to produce something without research and development which is possibly one of the stupidest things I have heard thus far. For example, you need research and development to produce a simple cup. You will need to know the dimensions, the geometry, and what type of material it will be made from (foam, plastic, ect,).

Oh really??? is it really catastrophe? or it is your english and poor comprehension problem? cmon.. dont make this up.

Yes your English is a catastrophe. My English is fine, in fact I was an English tutor. And I don’t make things up, your sentences have no flow, poor punctuation, you misspell words, and in general your English is very poor, with poor word choices that render your sentences confusing and incoherent. In any kind of higher level English college writing class you would fail. And I’m not saying my English is perfect, but for a forum it is exceptional.

Talking about grammar, you have made many mistakes, but I dont want to bother to show them to you because it is not point of my arguments; despite ur grammatical mistake I still have logic and comprehension capability to understand ur writing.

Really? Point those mistakes out. Any mistakes I have possible made have been few and rare. You, on the other hand, keep embarrassing yourself with your writing skills, despite the fact that it was you that brought up the “verbal” debate and told me I had the “intelectual” problems, so really it was you that started it. You just so happen to be out of your league.


Another one of your problems is that you can not stay focused on a particular subject and instead try to divert attention from your failed arguments by ranting, crying and bitching about anything and everything.

I write: china has "r&d capability" to develop virgilius.

Now show me which mistaken grammar/sentence that I've made that cause you to think that r&d capability = production capability!

Pathetic excuse

As I said I have quoted you multiple times, in your quotes you claimed China has the capability to produce the Virgilous and then you retracted your claim based on the fact that you said China may sell their Virgilous to Russia one day, which you than interpreted it as, China does not yet have the capability to produce the Virgilous. As I stated before your language is vague and can be interpreted in many ways.

Ur excuse is funny.... u sound like robot

No I just pointed out one of your many grammatical mistakes that made no sense, so how can you blame me for having a reading comprehension when you are the one that is not making any sense. Reading your posts is sometimes like an puzzle or enigma, you make no sense.

Yes china could produce without doing r&d, and it is not only china but other country could do the same.
That's why many US company do r&d in silicon valey and give their design to china for production.

I wonder if u are from engineering background?

I give u one example:
Do u know Foxconn produce Ipad 2 tablet for Apple?
Ipad 2 is not the result of Foxconn r&d, but Apple's r&d, however Apple doesnt produce Ipad at all. Apple give their design to foxconn for production.

It is surprising to know U have no clue about that

More proof you’re slow, I clearly stated that certain things can be produced under license or technology transfer, but we are not talking about technology transfer, we are talking about ECM’s, more specifically the Virgilous, which no one will give to China to copy. Get it?

I dont say that china could produce virgilius without r&d. I said r&d capability was not the same as production capability, because u were mixing both;

Once again you used vague language which you conveniently than interpret in any way you chose. You clearly stated China can produce items without research and development , but nowhere did you imply it was technology transfer, nor did you mention anything specifically. Sometime I wonder if I’m arguing with a 12 year old.

Besides inconsistency, ur explanation is not making sense at all.

Why the Typhoon Virgilous is so unique that science & technology superpower like China or USA cannot develop? it is ridiculous.

There is no rule in this universe that the "uniqueness of a technology" would prevent a country especially country like china or usa with strong r&d capability to develop it.

How does my explanation not make sense? As I explained even radars with the same TR module count have radically different performance. And if you do not except my explanation of TR modules than you can not argue about turbofan engines. Chinese engines still lack in MTBO’s, service life and T/W ratio even though China has had access to foreign engines. If China can not make anything even remotely close to the F-135 turbo fan than why do you think it would be easy to make a Virgilous?

Again u are demonstrating ur comprehension problem.
I never said china will 100% copy virgilius, I said: "china has r&d capability to develop it!"

That is impossible, how can you develop a Virgilous system if it will not be 100% similar. I can see you hardly know what the Virgilous is. It is an internal ECM system, so perhaps China can develop an internal ECM but it will not be a Vergilous since that is a unique system and no one is going to give it to China for study purposes.

Why are you guys debating with an Asian-Russian? His opinions does not reflect those of white Russia. He is descriminated in Russia.

It is like debating with a Vietnamese/Indian-American. They will hate you no matter what; and they're not Americans.

I’m Asian? Wow, even I did not know that, last time I looked in the mirror I looked pretty white. Did you happen to extract my DNA?

 

[antonius123]

Once again you keep ranting on about verbal problems but you still can not compile a half coherent sentence. It was also you that claimed that it is possible to produce something without research and development which is possibly one of the stupidest things I have heard thus far. For example, you need research and development to produce a simple cup. You will need to know the dimensions, the geometry, and what type of material it will be made from (foam, plastic, ect,).

You still keep ranting on my grammar as your excuse for your incapability in comprehension, it is shameful excuse and demonstrating your low Intellectual capability.

I never said r&d is not required at all for production, I said: we can produce without doing r&d (as r&d could be done by other party/country). Again u with ur verbal problem can't distinguish and understand the difference.

I have given u explanation and example of foxconn produce Ipad without their own r&d, which obviously you fail to understand as usual

I said we could produce without doing r&d to show you that r&d and production is 2 different things, which obviously it is still difficult for you to comprehend.

Yes your English is a catastrophe. My English is fine, in fact I was an English tutor. And I don’t make things up, your sentences have no flow, poor punctuation, you misspell words, and in general your English is very poor, with poor word choices that render your sentences confusing and incoherent. In any kind of higher level English college writing class you would fail. And I’m not saying my English is perfect, but for a forum it is exceptional.

Stop ranting on my grammar, coz it is not acceptable excuse for your failure to understand my simple and clear arguments that I have repeated many times.

U are an English tutor?? hm.. maybe.... but it is explaining why u seem not to have strong industrial engineering background in your arguments, as u could not distinguish r&d and production. Still.. ur English writing is also far from perfect though your effort, while I indeed do not effort to do so

Really? Point those mistakes out. Any mistakes I have possible made have been few and rare. You, on the other hand, keep embarrassing yourself with your writing skills, despite the fact that it was you that brought up the “verbal” debate and told me I had the “intellectual” problems, so really it was you that started it. You just so happen to be out of your league.

I dont want to be out of topic by discussing your grammar mistake found in your writing here, as it will distract you farther from understanding my simple and logical point.

Of course it is rare, because u put effort to do so, while I do not effort to write according to perfect grammar. As u see.. i use "u", "ppl", "coz" which is not justified in grammar, but acceptable in informal discussion.

Another one of your problems is that you can not stay focused on a particular subject and instead try to divert attention from your failed arguments by ranting, crying and bitching about anything and everything.

Nope....

I keep focusing on my argument :

• that China has r&d capability to develop virgilous.
• r&d capability is not the same as production capability that you mixed up

As the matter of fact, u still failed to comprehend my point beside you don't understand about r&d capability and the difference with production capability.

I told you about your verbal problem and sort of, because you keep failing to catch that simple point.

As I said I have quoted you multiple times, in your quotes you claimed China has the capability to produce the Virgilous and then you retracted your claim based on the fact that you said China may sell their Virgilous to Russia one day, which you than interpreted it as, China does not yet have the capability to produce the Virgilous. As I stated before your language is vague and can be interpreted in many ways.

This is the blatant idiocy of yours.

You said many times so, but I have responded you many times by asking: when I claimed china had capability to produce the virgilous, and many times you keep failing to prove. Shame on u

Ur terrible misunderstanding is because you don't have right concept of r&d and production, therefore u cannot distinguish both of them. See... i have many times challenge you in this topic but again and again not only u fail to respond properly, but u also fail to comprehend my simple point. don't blame on me if i critic your IQ.

You cant keep repeating your argument that I have repeatedly responded (and brake) many times, it is not an intellectual discussion at all and more demonstrate ur intellectual problem, u should answer and respond my argument properly and logically.

More proof you’re slow, I clearly stated that certain things can be produced under license or technology transfer, but we are not talking about technology transfer, we are talking about ECM’s, more specifically the Virgilous, which no one will give to China to copy. Get it?

But you don't understand when I said: we could produce without our own r&d LOL

It prove that it is you that very slow.

Now I ask you: do u understand now the difference between r&d capability and production capability?

Once again you used vague language which you conveniently than interpret in any way you chose. You clearly stated China can produce items without research and development , but nowhere did you imply it was technology transfer, nor did you mention anything specifically. Sometime I wonder if I’m arguing with a 12 year old.

Again... if u don't understand or not clear, ask!

I am not responsible with your intellectual capability to catch my point.

U should understand other ppl argument' context, they may not stated the context clearly in a long sentence like in textbook or communication letter, but u could ask! that's why it is called: "DISCUSSION".

If you are smart enough and not narrow minded, you should be able to see that possibility (of product design transfer) in my arguments which you obviously failed to see.

As a matter of fact, the way you see other people's argument and the way you discuss make me curious if you are about 12 year old

How does my explanation not make sense? As I explained even radars with the same TR module count have radically different performance. And if you do not except my explanation of TR modules than you can not argue about turbofan engines. Chinese engines still lack in MTBO’s, service life and T/W ratio even though China has had access to foreign engines. If China can not make anything even remotely close to the F-135 turbo fan than why do you think it would be easy to make a Virgilous?

Again you demonstrate your incapability in reading comprehension.

I did not argue about your technical explanation, instead I am arguing the logic behind ur arguments

I do not deny that chinese engine lack in MTBO's, service life etc, as I do not deny the possibility that china is not able to produce virgilous.

But as I told you in the beginning and repeated many times : china may not have capability to produce powerful engine/virgilous at the moment, but she has r&d capability to develop the powerful engine or virgilous, and you may see china release powerful engine/virgilous in the near future.

I have explained u many times about the difference between r&d capability and production capability, so if you keep mixing it up without ability to counter my explanation about the difference of them, then u are demonstrating idiocy farther.

That is impossible, how can you develop a Virgilous system if it will not be 100% similar. I can see you hardly know what the Virgilous is. It is an internal ECM system, so perhaps China can develop an internal ECM but it will not be a Vergilous since that is a unique system and no one is going to give it to China for study purposes.

It is only a matter of "name".

China may someday soon produce so called "virginity" with performance equal or even exceed typhoon virgilous.

There is nothing impossible for that, as i said China has strong r&d capability.

Have I explained you about fastest bullet train that china develop?? It is not similar to those of germany nor japan, but it has equal or even better performance in many areas.

The same case also with micro processor "Loongson"; it is not 100% similar to intel, but it has performance about equal.

So, don't be narrow minded by saying that china could not produce the same thing with the same purpose and same performance without having 100% similar system. its very laughable especially for those who claim themselves as engineer/having technical background

 

[revu]

Oh really??? is it really catastrophe? or it is your english and poor comprehension problem? cmon.. dont make this up.

verbal capability require some logic and iq.

With this verbal thing, i now know who you are.

Welcome back to PDF IJKT bro....

 

[ptldM3]

You still keep ranting on my grammar as your excuse for your incapability in comprehension, it is shameful excuse and demonstrating your low Intellectual capability.

I never said r&d is not required at all for production, I said: we can produce without doing r&d (as r&d could be done by other party/country). Again u with ur verbal problem can't distinguish and understand the difference.

I have given u explanation and example of foxconn produce Ipad without their own r&d, which obviously you fail to understand as usual

I said we could produce without doing r&d to show you that r&d and production is 2 different things, which obviously it is still difficult for you to comprehend.

You clearly don’t read anything I post and then look like a fool on a public forum, I posted this in post #77:

Don’t lecture me on research and development and producing a system. It is not possible to produce anything without research and development unless someone transfers the technology and know how.

Not only have we established that you can not compile a coherent sentence but that you also can not read. Do you see that part that i highlighted about technology transfer? Or can you not read? The fact that you even mentioned producing something under license shows that you are running out of arguments. The argument here is producing an ECM suit, obviously no one will let China copy their designs, so what is the point of your rant? Clearly you have none. All of your arguments are rants that try to deviate from the real matter, heck you even mock my near perfect grammar while you have the writing skills of a 6 year old.

 

[antonius123]

You clearly don’t read anything I post and then look like a fool on a public forum, I posted this in post #77:




Not only have we established that you can not compile a coherent sentence but that you also can not read. Do you see that part that i highlighted about technology transfer? Or can you not read?

Oh...I have responded that very well

See again bellow:

Again... if u don't understand or not clear, ask!

I am not responsible with your intellectual capability to catch my point.

U should understand other ppl argument' context, they may not stated the context clearly in a long sentence like in textbook or communication letter, but u could ask! that's why it is called: "DISCUSSION".

If you are smart enough and not narrow minded, you should be able to see that possibility (of product design transfer) in my arguments which you obviously failed to see.

As a matter of fact, the way you see other people's argument and the way you discuss make me curious if you are about 12 year old

You obviously did not see that possibility in my argument, that's why you are slow and come later with argument about "product design transfer / sort of" which stupidly is self explanatory to your previous counter (that production will always need r&d).

The problem in comprehension and IQ belongs to u, not mine.

The fact that you even mentioned producing something under license shows that you are running out of arguments. The argument here is producing an ECM suit, obviously no one will let China copy their designs, so what is the point of your rant? Clearly you have none. All of your arguments are rants that try to deviate from the real matter, heck you even mock my near perfect grammar while you have the writing skills of a 6 year old.

Your reading comprehension is so pathetic. How many times should I repeat the same thing to you?

Please read again my previous post:

Again u are demonstrating ur comprehension problem.
I never said china will 100% copy virgilius, I said: "china has r&d capability to develop it!"

Why it is so difficult for you to understand simple sentence?
maybe they are not identical in specification, but could have the same or even better performance.

I have shown u about how china develop the fastest bullet train and the fastest supercomputer to you many times, remember?

Nobody talks about china copying virgilous except you here.
Also I have explained you that my argument that we could produce without doing r&d is to show that production is totally different from r&d which your brain could not discern until now.

 

[Black Widow]

Madh-allah, No news is better than this... Dil ko sakoon mila..

 

[ptldM3]

Oh...I have responded that very well

See again bellow:



You obviously did not see that possibility in my argument, that's why you are slow and come later with argument about "product design transfer / sort of" which stupidly is self explanatory to your previous counter (that production will always need r&d).

The problem in comprehension and IQ belongs to u, not mine.

And the only thing this proves is that you are still slow in the head. I have clearly and explicitly stated that under certain circumstances the ability to manufacture something without research and development is possible such as license manufacturing. You, on the other hand, start ranting of “seeing the possibility” in “your argument“--which is ironic because your argument is as empty as the universe. Moreover, you have yet to answer my question regarding the subject, and this is----what is your point?

Besides ranting about manufacturing something without research and development you have yet to justify your rants--and before you go jumping up and down calling me stupid, let me again remind you that I, myself stated what you have been yelling, so what was your rant about? How does it apply to the topic? Remember no one is going to let China copy or license produce a Virgilous type system, and yes I know you stated the same thing multiple times which only makes your argument look even more foolish. Foolish as in you brought up manufacturing something under license but then conceded the fact that no one will allow China to copy something under license---are things starting to clear up now or are you still in a confused haze?

And before you respond read the above passage one more time because clearly it is you that has been having the problems in deciphering my clearly written responses, so once again, read carefully, then think, then post.

And yes production is different from reseach and development, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but that is not an appropriate argument in the context of the Virgilous.

 

[antonius123]

And the only thing this proves is that you are still slow in the head. I have clearly and explicitly stated that under certain circumstances the ability to manufacture something without research and development is possible such as license manufacturing. You, on the other hand, start ranting of “seeing the possibility” in “your argument“--which is ironic because your argument is as empty as the universe. Moreover, you have yet to answer my question regarding the subject, and this is----what is your point?

Thats why I said you are stupid as you answer your own question

You know that production without r&d is possible such as license manufacturing, but u argue/reject my statement that we could produce without r&d.

And more pathetic thing is even until now u do not realize your stupidity.

Besides ranting about manufacturing something without research and development you have yet to justify your rants--and before you go jumping up and down calling me stupid, let me again remind you that I, myself stated what you have been yelling, so what was your rant about? How does it apply to the topic?

What I rant is very clear from the beginning, that : "China has r&d capability to develop so called virgilous; and it is much related to the topic.

It is you that ranting useless point like grammar etc in order to excuse your failure to comprehend my points, and it is a shame and unacceptable excuse, and this excuse demonstrate your problem with IQ or verbal capability.

Remember no one is going to let China copy or license produce a Virgilous type system, and yes I know you stated the same thing multiple times which only makes your argument look even more foolish. Foolish as in you brought up manufacturing something under license but then conceded the fact that no one will allow China to copy something under license---are things starting to clear up now or are you still in a confused haze?

You have stated the same thing/argument that I have replied/answered/broken multiple times. It means you have failed to understand my very simple reply, and it demonstrate your ignorance and idiocy.

I have said many times that China could develop virgilous with her own r&d, not by copying, and you are full of ignorance.

Besides, you have made another stupid statement above saying that no one will allow china to copy..... as if somebody else except china would be allowed to copy.

What a stupidhead copying military technology basically is not allowed for anyone - not only china; and china doesn't require somebody permission for copying/re.

But again.. nobody talk about china copying except ignorant and stupid one like you

And before you respond read the above passage one more time because clearly it is you that has been having the problems in deciphering my clearly written responses, so once again, read carefully, then think, then post.

I have, but from your ignorance and repeating the things that I have answered many times, it is obvious that you haven't read my passage carefully.

And yes production is different from reseach and development, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that out, but that is not an appropriate argument in the context of the Virgilous.

I am not saying the difference of them in context of virgilous. Like i said many times to you and you are ignorant/ fail to understand, I am saying the difference of production and r&d because you were mixing them up and thought they were the same

I said: china has r&d capability to develop virgilous, and it has nothing to do with china current incapability to produce virgilous, because you ranting on the claim that china is incapable to produce it (inconsistently )

My advice to you: read my argument carefully and think before replying, this is in order for you to avoid repeating stupid argument that I have answered well many times without your showing capability to broke yet.

I am expecting you could move ahead in the discussion by not repeating something that I have answered many times but you many times fail to see.

 

[Yasir_Tiger]

The Russian 117S Engine

 

[S10]

 

[Aramsogo]

^^^^^^

Needs this for his butthurt...