Quality Control Crisis in Chinese Jet Fighter Production?

[Moscow]

Sir, don't try to get out of this. You already lost your credibility on this forum.

yes who is saying this just checked when i joined this forum and my previous posts....

i said an american source i did not say reuters is american dont put words the origin of the reuters article was an interview with american intelligence guys these so called guys are present on all websites like the one i quoted........

 

[Moscow]

Sir, don't try to get out of this. You already lost your credibility on this forum.

prove it to me that the source of the reuters article was not an american source.

 

[ao333]

prove it to me that the source of the reuters article was not an american source.

Sir, Reuters gathered intel from several American individuals. It makes the source British. If Reuters gathered information from Russian government officials about corruption, would that make the Reuters article "Russian"? Google Reuters and tell me if it's American.

By the way, your "defensetech.org" gathers information from other fanboy sites. It's halarious.

The PLA recently rejected delivery of 16 J-11B (a licensed version of the Su-27 Flanker) because of abnormal vibrations.

1) J-11 is licensed Su-27; J-11B is not.

2) Rejection of 16 J-11B was from Kanwa/Kyodo news. I think this person needs to know better to quote from Japanese sources about Chinese military. Japan said China is building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, LOL.

Chinese production of the single engine J-10B (reverse engineered from Israel’s Lavi)

Even Janes stated that it was unsure if there was really a lavi deal. This guy is sure of it...? Who is he? Head of the CIA? LOL

The news report also claims that the design of the 200-odd J-10s produced have not worked out as desired by [the] developers.

I just don't see how this site is better than Wikipedia. The speculation level is off the roof. I suggest you leave it before others start laughing at you again.

 

[Moscow]

By the way, your "defensetech.org" gathers information from other fanboy sites. It's halarious.



1) J-11 is licensed Su-27; J-11B is not.

2) Rejection of 16 J-11B was from Kanwa/Kyodo news. I think this person needs to know better to quote from Japanese sources about Chinese military. Japan said China was building nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, LOL.



Even Janes stated that it was unsure if there was really a lavi deal. This guy is sure of it...? Who is he? Head of the CIA? LOL



I just don't see how this site is better than Wikipedia. I suggest you leave it before others start laughing at you again.

Sir, Reuters gathered intel from several American individuals. It makes the source British. If Reuters gathered information from Russian government officials about corruption, would that make the Reuters article "Russian"? Google Reuters and tell me if it's American.

it does not make reuters american or russian but ir makes the rigion of the news as a american source or russian source which gets quoted by reuters this must be mentioned unless reuters has their own reporter making the analysis and the claims
if a british reuters reporter made the claims and printed it it was a british source on reuters now in this case its an american source quoted and published on reuters so your earlier twisting m words dosent hold true .

 

[中华人民共和&#]

Well let's get one thing clear first:

You're here to troll, and you're desperate to find any source necessary to do so, hence the forum you present to us now.

Also, there's one other thing I don't get.

Indians hypocritically promote peace and tranquility but whenever someone posts some anti-china post, they all gather around to thank the user like flies stuck on crap.

Just to name one, Seiko *cough* *cough*

 

[farhan_9909]

Well

world considered chineese as skills less bt its nt true

YOu will see one day J-xx in the sky and before 2018 too

 

[ao333]

it does not make reuters american or russian but ir makes the rigion of the news as a american source or russian source which gets quoted by reuters this must be mentioned unless reuters has their own reporter making the analysis and the claims
if a british reuters reporter made the claims and printed it it was a british source on reuters now in this case its an american source quoted and published on reuters so your earlier twisting m words dosent hold true .

When you quote from an article, that article is the source. Reuters writers collect opinions from numerous individuals and organizations so its articles become informative. Sometimes you do not know who participated in the editing and the review, so you label the source "Reuters." Many Xinhua (Chinese news agency) articles collect information from Russians. Does that make the Xinhua article "Russian source?" No.

By the way, I can't understand what you're trying to say. Your English is too poor. I suggest you to stop reading fanboy sites like defensetech.org. It's good for laughs, but is not credible.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You're just going to keep on writing Russian-English until I get tired and leave the thread, which is what I'm doing now.

 

[noksss]

When you quote from an article, that article is the source. Reuters writers collect opinions from numerous individuals and organizations so its articles become informative. Sometimes you do not know who participated in the editing and the review, so you label the source "Reuters." Many Xinhua (Chinese news agency) articles collect information from Russians. Does that make the Xinhua article "Russian source?" No.

By the way, I can't understand what you're trying to say. Your English is too poor. I suggest you to stop reading fanboy sites like defensetech.org. It's good for laughs, but is not credible.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You're just going to keep on writing Russian-English until I get tired and leave the thread, which is what I'm doing now.

You are clearly deviating from the topic by calling some sites as Fanboy and some as small boy the intention of this article is that if PLA air force is rejecting it's domestically developed fighter which is not in the 5th generation class How can china develop a 5th generation by 2018 .So to answer his question u should give some proof which shows that the J-10 has not crahsed recently and there is no technical flaws with the chinese made fighter .Trolling here dosent answer the basic questions raised by this thread .

 

[below_freezing]

You are clearly deviating from the topic by calling some sites as Fanboy and some as small boy the intention of this article is that if PLA air force is rejecting it's domestically developed fighter which is not in the 5th generation class How can china develop a 5th generation by 2018 .So to answer his question u should give some proof which shows that the J-10 has not crahsed recently and there is no technical flaws with the chinese made fighter .Trolling here dosent answer the basic questions raised by this thread .

he's japanese, not chinese.

it's 20 planes. we have over 1200 indigenous planes in service. your "rejecting" is rejecting a small batch. unlike india which takes half-assed crap like Lazy-Crap-Airplane and Arjunk.

and lol at plane crashes, you're superpower in this area, 1st place, we can't beat you.

 

[Moscow]

When you quote from an article, that article is the source. Reuters writers collect opinions from numerous individuals and organizations so its articles become informative. Sometimes you do not know who participated in the editing and the review, so you label the source "Reuters." Many Xinhua (Chinese news agency) articles collect information from Russians. Does that make the Xinhua article "Russian source?" No.

By the way, I can't understand what you're trying to say. Your English is too poor. I suggest you to stop reading fanboy sites like defensetech.org. It's good for laughs, but is not credible.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore. You're just going to keep on writing Russian-English until I get tired and leave the thread, which is what I'm doing now.

stop crying about my russian english as i can see yo are no better you twist simple words to suit your needs and when you have no point or base to debate you leave with a cry baby syndrome , that this site is fanboy and that site is owned by mr x and that is not this and what not

love and understanding be upon you

 

[Moscow]

Well let's get one thing clear first:

You're here to troll, and you're desperate to find any source necessary to do so, hence the forum you present to us now.

Also, there's one other thing I don't get.

Indians hypocritically promote peace and tranquility but whenever someone posts some anti-china post, they all gather around to thank the user like flies stuck on crap.

Just to name one, Seiko *cough* *cough*

look who is trolling here you have made no point on the topic,
where is seiko here? where are the indians

come down to earth newbie and stop interfering if you cannot offer anything to debate

 

[Moscow]

here cry babies here is another artcile posted from within the mainland the originalpiece appeared in kanwa defence review magazine ...........
here is the link now stop crying about links
Chinese Military Won't Accept 'Made In China' Fighters

Chinese Military Won't Accept 'Made In China' Fighters
Chinese Military Won't Accept 'Made In China' Fighters

BEIJING (Kyodo) -- China's Air Force has refused to accept 16 J-11B fighters manufactured by a domestic aircraft maker due to technical problems, the Kanwa Defense Review magazine said in its June issue, quoting a Western intelligence source in Beijing.

China is believed to have developed the new fighter based on technology from the Russian fighter Sukhoi Su-27, sparking speculation that the maker, Shenyang Aircraft Corp., may have failed to employ Russian technology accurately.

Shenyang Aircraft, based in Liaoning Province, manufactured 16 J-11B fighters in 2009.

"When the Air Force was checking them up for delivery, J-11B had abnormal vibration after taking off," the magazine quoted the source as saying. "As a result, the Air Force refused to accept the aircraft."

A Chinese military source said the J-11B was not chosen for exhibition at the National Day military parade in October last year due to doubts over technical feature of the fighter, according to the magazine.

the news is quoted from Kanwa. the reporter is Pinkov.the original source is cd released from chinese military sources ............

anyone here with link problems again ?

 

[noksss]

he's japanese, not chinese.

it's 20 planes. we have over 1200 indigenous planes in service. your "rejecting" is rejecting a small batch. unlike india which takes half-assed crap like Lazy-Crap-Airplane and Arjunk.

and lol at plane crashes, you're superpower in this area, 1st place, we can't beat you.

Still u have answered anything related to this topic y r u dragging india here Dont u have the basic knowledge that the plane crashed in india is foreign-made like the mig-21 etc .This show ur poor knowledge in understanding things i guess that's y u have not understood what the topic is all about and talking Craps like Funboy sites

 

[aimarraul]

here cry babies here is another artcile posted from within the mainland the originalpiece appeared in kanwa defence review magazine ...........
here is the link now stop crying about links







the news is quoted from Kanwa. the reporter is Pinkov.the original source is cd released from chinese military sources ............

anyone here with link problems again ?

there is no original source,CD is an open military forum.......few netizens make up "sources" to catch the eyeballs sometimes,poor Pinkov

 

[Moscow]

there is no original source,CD is an open military forum.......few netizens make up "sources" to catch the eyeballs sometimes,poor Pinkov

exactly tru there is no original source in open media so no labelling this as good source and that as fanboy source and yes true sometimes people make up stories including reporters and military experts like the 2018 story on reuters ....

true now anybody still wants to grade websites i guess there is no debate left and yes somebody was trying to prove something to me and claimed he exposed something i still cant find out who ?
also where is the newbie forum expert who labelled me as troll do you have anything to say sir then please bring it on ........