That's precisely what I'm arguing. There are two types of military articles on GT: the editorials on US posturing and other political affairs, and the straight reporting on sales, tests, etc. This is a sample of the latter articlesBut if you're arguing that GT deserves to be taken seriously at the outset of every article as a baseline assumption then I think that is a hard sell.
There's a difference between "new and useful" and "accurate". I argue that GT should be given credibility for the latter - it has access to far better sources than we do, it's just that those sources are under strict secrecy guidelines, so they'll be careful about what they reveal and what they'll allow to be published. But they won't give falsehoods. It's true that new information is rare (of the above, only the ATGM test could be considered new) - I argue that we should consider such new information accurate until proved otherwise.GT articles on military pieces which provide new or useful information tend to be the exception rather than the norm, and this includes recent articles.
Yet more evidence that my position is the correct one.With the addition of what Yankeesama wrote on it, I think the developer saying it's a missile that is at the world leading level is quite fair.