Search results

..........................................:rofl:

You just enjoy your vacation buddy. It's good for ya

my intellectually challenged friend, the missile will take some time to get to the carrier. At maximum range that is about 14-15 minutes of flight time. at 35 knots a carrier will cover 14-15 kilometres in that amount of time. Do you understand or do you want me to do the math for you ????

conservative estimations put a high limit of less than 22 seconds for the warhead to search track and lock on at terminal phase. Again conservative estimates place the target at any position within a 13-15 km radius from it's original position when the missile was launched.

if i have to take my pick, does that mean that the actual info is not out there right ? Essentially an assumptions game. Now that we have established that, let go down the list. 1. GPS via Beidou satellites. If I am not mistaken, these satellites are only providing position, they are...

As far as I know, no airplane that ever served, anywhere in the world was a piece of crap. Sure there were other planes far superior or better performing, but all planes that ever served where as far removed from crap as you can possibly imagine.

It will be interesting to see what the response will be. This is a genuine case where I am really curious to find out. let's see.

How are these missiles guided? if the US have two carriers in the region that is 200 missiles according to your theory. may i ask how they are guided?

I don't like the F-35. I think it is too expensive and too restrictive for what it offers, and is not going to fill the shoes of its predecessor (F-16). Others (Gambit for instance) disagree. APA however goes on to call the F-35 useless which clearly isn't. perhaps he too feels the price is...

Well know you are speaking "chinese" to him. I bet he doesn't even begin to understand what you just said.

You are gonna be waiting a long time. It is worth retracing this thread and take note of how many things he actually hasn't answered. Come to think of it, he hasn't answered a single ONE! + he loves his wikipedia. According to him, if wiki doesn't say it, it's not real.

It is their standard evaluation. Everything new that comes out is better than the F-35. Personally I don't like the F-35, but I think a pattern is emerging with APA.

another incoherent bubbling...

Yes, he posted this in another thread too!

send word to the west coast, this is coming :

yes yes yes, any news on how your superman comes along?

yes yes yes, I am not ripping at you for this, I meant you need to be more careful with the images, because that last one with the tanks on board is just hilarious .. ;)

excuse me, the extent of your navy's ability is to place field artillery and tanks on ships? Who are you going to fight, U571 ??? :rofl: make sure this "tank equipped" ship doesn't have to come up against this : :rofl::rofl: I'm sorry man, I don't mean to be ripping at you like this...

to a 'stool general' ??

I think he might be missing the political statement the use of the B-2 made in that case, which was beyond mission requirements.