Loiter? You are soooo limited in your thinking.
A single beam can be used to create the appearance of a unitary image.
Considering how making unsupported and even unsupportable claims from the Chinese crowds here...That is a hoot.
I did not asked you to. I advised you to use the American invention known as 'the Internet' and educate yourself using keyword search such as 'ring laser gyro ins drift rate'. The same technique you used to find your images that you posted but now too inconvenient because it would prove what I said.
In every meeting/discussion, no matter where, there comes a point where it is apparent to everyone attending that there is a person who just do not have the necessary mental and intellectual capacity -- simply put as too stupid -- to understand the subject. A meeting's moderator is usually perceptive and polite enough to steer the meeting to the next point to spare that person further embarrassment. I think we have reached that point with this guy and just leave him to his delusions.
There's one important thing I forgot to mention.
The destruction of GPS will neutralize both the B-2 and F-22's air-to-ground capability.
Neither aircraft have the F-35's EOTS.
Neither aircraft are able to carry the Sniper Pod. You wouldn't want to in the first place.
For example, can anyone find me a picture of the B-2 or F-22 dropping the Paveway like in this picture here? Bet you can't.
http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/F_35B_drops_GBU_12_for_first_time_01.jpg
Spare me that 'high Chinese IQ'...
Spare me that 'high Chinese IQ'...
The most important factor in fuel usage efficiency is burn and very close behind is the power to weight ratio.
- We want to burn as much of any X quantity of fuel as possible. That is why there is a process called 'atomization' where the fuel is turned into as fine a mist as possible.
- We want to minimize the weight that the energy from the burning of the fuel has to carry. One horse carrying/pulling 100 kilos will out pace, out distance, and out last another horse carrying/pulling 500 kilos.
So if the Chinese car changed to an aluminum frame and therefore is lighter overall, that still would NOT make the Chinese car more technologically superior because the American can easily change the steel frame to an aluminum version in one generation. Or the Americans can find ways to use less steel to reduce mass/weight and yet still have the same structural strength.
On the other hand, if the American car uses electronic fuel injection while the Chinese car uses carbureration, that will make the American car technologically superior because electronic fuel injection require much more sophisticated spark control, fuel dispense, finer fuel atomization which lead to less fuel required to produce the same power output which will equate to better fuel efficiency.
It is far easier to achieve the first than for the second. Reduction of steel for the frame does not introduce anything new to the car, but fuel injection require an electronic control unit, more wiring, higher fuel pressure, and a fuel pump while the carburetor does not require a fuel pump.
Returning to the ASAT issue, going from one orbital altitude to a higher one does not require a technological breakthrough, just a larger vehicle. The US went to the Moon and stationed satellites at several altitudes, so why should it be difficult for US to plant an ASAT satellite anywhere? In the simple Chinese mind, if China does it and no one else does it, it means no one else can.
TL;DRSpare me that 'high Chinese IQ'...
The most important factor in fuel usage efficiency is burn and very close behind is the power to weight ratio.
- We want to burn as much of any X quantity of fuel as possible. That is why there is a process called 'atomization' where the fuel is turned into as fine a mist as possible.
- We want to minimize the weight that the energy from the burning of the fuel has to carry. One horse carrying/pulling 100 kilos will out pace, out distance, and out last another horse carrying/pulling 500 kilos.
So if the Chinese car changed to an aluminum frame and therefore is lighter overall, that still would NOT make the Chinese car more technologically superior because the American can easily change the steel frame to an aluminum version in one generation. Or the Americans can find ways to use less steel to reduce mass/weight and yet still have the same structural strength.
On the other hand, if the American car uses electronic fuel injection while the Chinese car uses carbureration, that will make the American car technologically superior because electronic fuel injection require much more sophisticated spark control, fuel dispense, finer fuel atomization which lead to less fuel required to produce the same power output which will equate to better fuel efficiency.
It is far easier to achieve the first than for the second. Reduction of steel for the frame does not introduce anything new to the car, but fuel injection require an electronic control unit, more wiring, higher fuel pressure, and a fuel pump while the carburetor does not require a fuel pump.
Returning to the ASAT issue, going from one orbital altitude to a higher one does not require a technological breakthrough, just a larger vehicle. The US went to the Moon and stationed satellites at several altitudes, so why should it be difficult for US to plant an ASAT satellite anywhere? In the simple Chinese mind, if China does it and no one else does it, it means no one else can.
Art thou enraged?Too hard for you to understand. We get it...
