Meet the US's answer to China's 'carrier killer' missile

[antonius123]

Yes, I am also interested to know the reason why the laser could hit mach 30 missile, or why not.

He obviously has problem with technical logic.

For him tracking and locking on 30 mach target is much easier and more real time than tracking slow moving ship

I think Antonius has answered that based on Texas Instrument article right?
SAR can update target information without blurr simply by the powerful computation and improved algorithm as offered by TI's solution.

With limited technical understanding it is difficult for him to comprehend the technical explanation in the citation.

 

[gambit]

Yes, I am also interested to know the reason why the laser could hit mach 30 missile, or why not.

First...Let us see why a laser can only hit targets moving at Mach 2 and less. It is funny that anty continuously avoided answering that since he was the first to bring it up, and it is equally funny that you chose to question me instead of him.

This is typical of your friend's way of debate. He made a claim without providing credible support, then when challenged to provide that support, he insisted that he be disproved. That is the mark of a fraud and a coward.

I think Antonius has answered that based on Texas Instrument article right?

No, he did not.

SAR can update target information without blurr simply by the powerful computation and improved algorithm as offered by TI's solution.

Then why no mention of it in that sales brochure ?

http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tidub40/tidub40.pdf

Target blurring is a serious weakness in any SAR system when the system tries to continuously monitor a moving target. If that TI component solved that weakness, why not state it ?

 

[antonius123]

First...Let us see why a laser can only hit targets moving at Mach 2 and less. It is funny that anty continuously avoided answering that since he was the first to bring it up, and it is equally funny that you chose to question me instead of him.

Where did I say that?

Fix your reading comprehension at the first place. Dont accuse other to have problem with understanding if you are demonstrating it.

This is typical of your friend's way of debate. He made a claim without providing credible support, then when challenged to provide that support, he insisted that he be disproved. That is the mark of a fraud and a coward.

I could not provide support, or you are playing denial?

No, he did not.


Then why no mention of it in that sales brochure ?

http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tidub40/tidub40.pdf

Target blurring is a serious weakness in any SAR system when the system tries to continuously monitor a moving target. If that TI component solved that weakness, why not state it ?

Not mentioned? or you can't understand the explanation due to limited technical understanding?

. One of the main challenges of SAR is to generate high resolution images in real-time, because forming the image involves computationally demanding signal processing procedures.
http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tidub40/tidub40.pdf

. In this design, the capability of the TMS320C6678 processor for SAR signal processing is shown in real time. This design also shows how the SAR algorithm may be modularized and mapped to C6678 architecture in order to achieve parallel computation
http://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tidub40/tidub40.pdf

TIDEP0045 Implementing a Real-time Synthetic Aperture Radar (SAR) Algorithm on TI’s C6678 DSP Reference Design System Image
http://www.ti.com/tool/TIDEP0045​

 

[gambit]

Where did I say that?

Here...

That laser gun can only hit cruise missile (< mach 2) at best.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-3#ixzz4Is3PBBHl

Are you denying those are words ?

So explain how not.

 

[antonius123]

Here...


Are you denying those are words ?

Do you understand it is about that laser gun, not laser in general?

So explain how not.

It is important that you understand people's point at the first place, before getting the answer.

 

[gambit]

Do you understand it is about that laser gun, not laser in general?

It is important that you understand people's point at the first place, before getting the answer.

Fine. In order for people to understand your point, you have to explain WITH details.

So explain in technical details on why lasers CANNOT shoot at targets traveling faster than Mach 2.

 

[antonius123]

Fine. In order for people to understand your point, you have to explain WITH details.

So explain in technical details on why lasers CANNOT shoot at targets traveling faster than Mach 2.

Oh I will .. no worry

But do you understand I am referring to "laser gun/weapon", not laser beam?

How would you be able to understand my coming technical explanation if you fail to understand my current basic statement.

 

[gambit]

Do you understand I am referring to "laser gun/weapon", not laser beam?

How would you be able to understand my coming technical explanation if you fail to understand my current basic statement.

You are just playing word games. No one takes you seriously. Either put up, or shut up. But telling you to shut up is pointless anyway. You are too childish to admit you are ignorant.

People have asked my opinions on many issues, technical and military, in the past. I respect their intelligence and time. Whatever I have, I presented it in one sitting. Unlike you in this debate, I have never dragged out any information over pages and days. What you have done so far is immature, a waste of bandwidth, and disrespectful of the readers.

 

[antonius123]

You are just playing word games. No one takes you seriously. Either put up, or shut up. But telling you to shut up is pointless anyway. You are too childish to admit you are ignorant.

So you still think my statement was referring to "laser beam" instead of "laser gun" ?

Which of my word that you dont understand? Let me repost my statement for you:

That laser gun can only hit cruise missile (< mach 2) at best.

Source: https://defence.pk/threads/meet-the...er-killer-missile.445091/page-3#ixzz4IsWYXOLW​

People have asked my opinions on many issues, technical and military, in the past. I respect their intelligence and time. Whatever I have, I presented it in one sitting. Unlike you in this debate, I have never dragged out any information over pages and days. What you have done so far is immature, a waste of bandwidth, and disrespectful of the readers.

If there is one who play with the word game, it is you.

You cannot even understand the simple statement, like i said it is only you who raise this stupid question.
You cannot understand the difference between laser gun and laser beam. So pathetic.

By demonstrating this, you are actually more deeply ruining your reputation as member with adequate intelligence and credibility in PDF.

 

[gambit]

So you still think my statement was referring to "laser beam" instead of "laser gun" ?

That is so pathetic.

If you know the answer, when challenged, the proper thing to do is put out your answer. Once and for all. It is irrelevant if the challenger understood what you mean by 'gun' or 'beam'. Shut him up with your proof.

Bottom line is: YOU HAVE NOTHING.

 

[antonius123]

That is so pathetic.

If you know the answer, when challenged, the proper thing to do is put out your answer. Once and for all. It is irrelevant if the challenger understood what you mean by 'gun' or 'beam'. Shut him up with your proof.

Bottom line is: YOU HAVE NOTHING.

You are really clown ..

If you don't catch my point of my statement, then how could I explain you the technical explanation behind my statement?

You dont understant the meaning of : "That laser gun can only hit cruise missile (< mach 2) at best." then how could I explain you why the laser gun can only hit object < mach 2 at best?

How come I explain why laser beam cannot hit missile 30 mach if I never think so? crazy ..

Bottom line is: YOU HAVE INSUFFICIENT INTELLIGENCE & TECHNICAL BACKGROUND for proper discussion. At the end you are entertaining us for being a clown.

 

[Brainsucker]

Still not over? Why don't you guys agree to disagree? @antonius123 @gambit

 

[gambit]

Still not over? Why don't you guys agree to disagree? @antonius123 @gambit

I just like to toy with the kid. He is entertaining.

 

[Pepsi Cola]

lol gambit's at it again. go get a life mate

 

[Nibiru]

Fine. In order for people to understand your point, you have to explain WITH details.

So explain in technical details on why lasers CANNOT shoot at targets traveling faster than Mach 2.

@gambit , Why according to you lasers should be able to shoot mach 30 missile?


@antonius123 , on the contrary why according to you that laser gun can only shoot mach 2 missile at best?