I am afraid you are entirely missing my point and you should chill out a bit and reread my post especially point # 2. It is not a problem relying on rumours that are credible source. When you interface with people outside your known community I am saying you need to present your position based on facts as you have collected through your sources. Taking a position based on the basis that your sources alone are more credible is not a tenable position to make an arqument.
Implication is the same. If they’re comparing the Su-35’s look up to the J-16’s look down the implication is that the J-16’s look up will be better. If the point of the comment was to say that the J-16’s look up is equivalent to the Su-35’s then could have just said so directly, and such a roundabout point wouldn’t be necessary.
because equal and significantly weaker do not have the same meaning in the English language. You can't have both of them having the same meaning. That is why they are inconsistent.
Look up range being “marginally” better than look down isn’t something that was said in the post you’re citing. That’s something you asserted on your own, not from the source itself. The quantity of “marginal” making the J16’s lookup equivalent to the Su-35’s is conjectural on your part.
Precisely. Why the round about way of saying it is beyond me. The net effect is that they are equal in detection range.
Read my other reply to you. That the net effect leads to equivalence is conjectural on your part. You’re assuming that the margin of difference between the J-16’s look up and look down is equivalent to the margin of difference between the Su-35’s look up and the J-16’s look down. The original source makes no such claim.
The look up and look down range being marginal is generally a well known fact in radar. My deduction is grounded in radar technology and not some imagination