Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
6 
Пожаловаться
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l2I2e7LNiA0
ED staff couldn't tell me...hmm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZvMljUNCeU
The best sources for good, real information are often not to be found on short television/youtube documentaries.
Similarly Lockheed are only selling the F-21 (modded F-16) to India as an exclusive sales pitch.
SU-57 Trials in Syria:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixlKGAM6mhU
F-21 for India exclusively:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_-i8iOLshQ
Hmmm those 2countries are not so friendly to each other are they. Business as usual ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEH8iLjlodM
First of all, I am not going to start into what is a "lie" or what is "fake" because those are stronger, more aggressive words than I would want to use in a conversation like this.
To put it in more general terms, I have learned that when you want to learn about military aircraft, their uses, what they are good at, and what they are not so good at, you are probably not going to get a lot of useful information from television documentaries and (especially) youtube content. This isn't because of "lies" or "fake" information, it is because (best case scenario) that kind of documentary content is so simplified for a normal audience that it ends up saying very little at all.
Now before you start launching into any debate about one country's documentary content versus another's. That is not really the issue. Case in point, American made military aircraft documentaries that you might watch on the history channel (like Wings, Dogfights!, and the like) also have this same problem. They are usually so simplified that they actually can end up coming off as rather wrong. This becomes even worse when you get into historical content since those documentaries often hinge their content on VERY unreliable pilot accounts as if they are absolute fact. For example, a now quite elderly P-51 pilot might say they flew the most important missions in the best plane while another episode or documentary might have a P-47 pilot say pretty much the same thing. You have to take that stuff with a grain of salt because even real life combat pilots are not always the most reliable, most factually based source of information.
There is also another angle to consider. Sometimes in order to get support from a military, a network or studio will sometimes be required to present content in a certain way or with a certain approach. This (again) isn't exactly specific to any one country but you will see varying degrees of it depending on the country's policies towards media. Case in point, the 'Wings of Russia' series isn't really trying to "lie" or present "fake" information. It is just limited in what it can say and how deeply it can go in order to get support from the military forces it wants to cover.
Perhaps my larger point here is that when you want to get actual, useful information about military weapons and equipment, you are probably going to have better results if you avoid youtube and television entirely (especially youtube) and focus instead on declassified publications when available, well researched and sourced books, and perhaps even talks given by people who helped design or handle the procurement of a given weapon system. The latter is actually where Youtube might come in handy since many of those talks get filmed and put on the platform.
Once you start really digging into this stuff, you will no doubt look back on some of the content you linked and get frustrated by its lack of real, useful information.
BTW there is much said against the stealth capability on the Chinese J-20 due to it's rather basic build. The fancy hidden Weapons Bay is also said to be a gimmick. Planes aye o7
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kdi-kd7XtY
How did we go from talking about planes to a video of a fireworks accident?
If that person did indeed die because of that accident, I am not sure what is particularly "chit chat" about that sort of video. You know what I mean? That is a pretty heavy thing.
"The J-11 was finally born in 1998 as a Chinese version of the Soviet-designed Sukhoi Su-27SK air superiority fighter after China secured a $US2.5 billion production agreement which licensed China to build 200 Su-27SK aircraft using Russian-supplied kits. Under the terms of the agreement, these aircraft would be outfitted with Russian avionics, radars and engines. However, in 2004, Russian media reported that Shenyang co-production of the basic J-11 was halted after around 100 examples were built. The PLAAF later revealed a mock-up of an upgraded multi-role version of the J-11 in mid-2002..."
It goes on to say the variant J-11B was a copy but with Chinese Parts which was pulled due to the Engines lasted just 30hours instead of the Russian 400hours.
"J-11A – Chinese/Russian assembled Su-27SK from Russian-made kits. 104 were built.
J-11B – Indigenously-produced (2007 with Naval versions and 2 Seaters) version using Chinese technology,[23] and the first J-11 variant to use the WS-10A turbofan."
- That is where info is spread and misleading crossing over the variants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-11