The French Navy Stands Up to China

[antonius123]

1.) I never said 2 destroyer is as strong as 10 destroyer, I said 2 destroyer CAN, and more importantly DID destroy 10 Destroyer.

Then you failed to grasp the keyword: everything else the same.

2.)Supersonic Missile CAN MOVE, but cannot manoeuvre, manouver would pull too much Gs on the missile.

Meet Meteor, PL-15, Brahmos, YJ-12, AMI-120, SM-6, etc. They are all supersonic even hypersonic, and do maneuver - not straight line trajectory as you thin [emoji38]

It prove not only you dont understand physics but also have no clue in military stuff. @gambit

3.) You are the one that don't understand ISTAR and Radar Tracking. At this stage China have no asset overseas, which mean if China have to track a target, China need to task a satellite, which mean lag time.

I am talking about supersonic missile and how lag time wont be big deal due to radar & tracking system onboard. Do you understand about that?

Obviously you dont understand about that.

4.)Satellite DO NOT MOVE, Satellite Orbit, you misunderstood the term move yourself. Space do not have air, hence no friction, hence any movement to the satellite will not be stop by friction, which mean if a satellite move, you will displace the orbit. Orbit is a gravitational pull to an object, that is because the earth itself move (it spin) and the density of the object is subject to earth gravity.

Satellite dont move? LOL. Dont put your level to elementary school student.

Learn physics including Einstein relativity of movement theory. @gambit

5.)That's because fleet replenishment does not just mean replenish oil (Where the RFA replenishment oil were) Bay class not a replenishment vessel but it is a offshore support ship, and other ship in the RFA and Secro Fleet support RN. RN + RFA + Serco have 58 + replenishment vessel.
Also, what you claim is flawed as well, because if you only replenishment vessel, then China have 11 not 18 replenishment ship, because only Type 903 and Type 903A - 8 ships, Type 905 - 1 ship and Type 908 - 2 ships is Replenishment ship, type 901 and type 904 is general store ship and fleet support.
You yourself misunderstood the concept of Fleet Replenishment (Which mean restock EVERYTHING, not just oil) and Replenishment Ship (Which equip with fuel tank to refuel other ship)

Still your citation doesnt agree with you and saying that you are a liar.

6.)Nope, you don't understand the procedure to procure arms. If US allies only choose Western Arms, then why South Korea uses Russian Tank (T-80U)

See .. you still dont understand the factors that effect procurement process.

I've mention many: politics, commonality, technology, price, after sales.

That mean which selling more doesnt mean their technology is better or allies etc.

7.)Cause I am not you, I don't need to call my supporter here, on the other hand, you need to call help from mod.



all of these were in the post I made and deleted by your mod friend.

No evidence, cry baby because you can't accept being a looser.

Self delusion is not debunking anything. Your lack of knowledge is very easy to see.

Talking about yourself? :

OH MY GOD. Do you even know what is the topic and scope I talked about? I talk about SINCE PEARL HARBOUR ATTACK TO GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN BETWEEN 1941 to 1942. HOW MANY CARRIER US HAVE IN THE PACIFIC FLEET DURING 1941 and 1942?

Do you even know when is Guadalcanal Fought? It did not fight in 1944. What US have in 1944 is not a concern to my topic.

You even get that requirement wrong, how "creditable" is the rest of your post is?

HAHA Oh My

Who said Japanese quantity is lot bigger than US/Allies in Guadalcanal Campaign?

The Japanese defenders, who had occupied those islands since May 1942, were outnumbered and overwhelmed by the Allies, who captured Tulagi and Florida, as well as the airfield – later named Henderson Field – that was under construction on Guadalcanal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_Campaign

In fact Japanese were outnumbered and overwhelmed by allies which mean quantity is on US/Allies side [emoji23]

This prove your claim that quantity doesnt matter is absolutely wrong and stupid to the ground.

See ... another persistent claim of yours is easily debunked again .. because either you just BS whithout knowing proper history or you are lying like your Britts 58 replenishment ship claim.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

 

[seesonic]

You just owned the two frauds @jhungary and @gambit with these. LOL

These two are notorious at getting sidetrack and using poor analogy to misdirect your argument. It's typical of their argument to reflect the argument into another area that they comfortable dealing with.


That fraud guy always think anything come out of the West is invincible and that China will just sit back and let France do anything it wants in a war. You masterfully debunk that fraud as anyone who read can tell. Your argument is straight and make perfect sense especially the maneuverability in high speed missile is not impossible. In fact it is very possible if people understand the aerodynamics of missile is built to deflect air friction.

Take a look at this thread.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/nvid...st-single-computer-humanity-has-built.561198/

@jhungary claims that AMD is good video processing because it has higher TFLOPS

 

[Yaseen1]

french navy failed to launch cruise missiles on Syria in response to chemical attacks which shows their ships and submarines are not fully operational and missiles are of poor accuracy

 

[jhungary]

Then you failed to grasp the keyword: everything else the same.

Dude, everything is the same that mean no one trait is better, hence number, technology, training, experience and luck are the same, by which it mean number is only one of the quality. But not all the other quality combine. Ie, just because you have 10 destroyer and I have 2, that DOES NOT mean my technology, my training, my experience and my luck is not as good as yours.

So saying that, you are literally echoing my point. Just exactly how dumb are you?

Meet Meteor, PL-15, Brahmos, YJ-12, AMI-120, SM-6, etc. They are all supersonic even hypersonic, and do maneuver - not straight line trajectory as you thin

It prove not only you dont understand physics but also have no clue in military stuff. @gambit

Dude, all the above missile cannot turn sharply, eg, do a High G turn. Which is the definition of "Manoeuvre" seems like you are not only have no clue in military matter, but also basic understanding of English, but that figured as you constantly spell Manoeuvre and Brit wrong.

I am talking about supersonic missile and how lag time wont be big deal due to radar & tracking system onboard. Do you understand about that?

Obviously you dont understand about that.

How just because the missile is supersonic, lag time wont be a big deal?

So because your missile is supersonic, the time taken to identify the target is less? What's the logic of that?

The majority of lag time come from you try to locate and identity the target, the missile itself won't do that. It have to be done by the operator.

Obviously you don't understand the whole concept of ISTAR.

Satellite dont move? LOL. Dont put your level to elementary school student.

Learn physics including Einstein relativity of movement theory. @gambit

First of all, Albert Einstein principle of relativity is not about movement. YOU EVEN FAILED TO GET THIS RIGHT. Principle of Relativity is about law of physics can be commonly applies to all spectrum of medium, which one of them is time.

The closest to your point is The Newton Third law of motion suggest a force of equal but opposite force to applies if a force is applies on a subject, not from Einstein. But Newton First law stated that if a force is applies to a inert medium, an object is either remain at rest or continue to move with a constant velocity unless act upon by a force. Space is an inert medium, which mean if the object move, it will move with a constant velocity and WILL NOT STOP until a force is exerted on it.

So, you failed to even grasp the basic principle of relativity, lol, talk about primary level physics. Heck, you even get the theory of Einstein and Newton mixed together, Einstein is a quantum physicist, his law would have to be about METAPHYSICS, not movement or physical spectrum, NEWTON is an applied physicist, his theory would be about actual physics.

Still your citation doesnt agree with you and saying that you are a liar.

lol, that mean you have no point on the argument.

Count the ship in the website on RN, RFA and Serco yourself, it exceed 58 ship in supporting role, and THAT IS BEFORE I COUNT United Kingdom Merchant Navy.

Only dumbarse like you can shoot yourself on the foot like this LOL. This is nothing but plain stupid.

See .. you still dont understand the factors that effect procurement process.

I've mention many: politics, commonality, technology, price, after sales.

That mean which selling more doesnt mean their technology is better or allies etc.

LOL, technology always matter, people buy equipment is about technology, if you don't care or already had that technology, why would you buy it to begin with? To say selling more mean their technology is not better is absurd.

But then it come from you, that figured.

No evidence, cry baby because you can't accept being a looser.

lol, as I said I don't care about that. I don't need other people to fight my battle, but you?

LOL. As for I am a loser, well, if a loser have 315 positive rating, 27 featured article and a title in this forum, then what is your category when you have 1 and none and none? Super-duper loser?

I don't mind being a loser if I beat you. LOL

Talking about yourself? :

Who said Japanese quantity is lot bigger than US/Allies in Guadalcanal Campaign?

The Japanese defenders, who had occupied those islands since May 1942, were outnumbered and overwhelmed by the Allies, who captured Tulagi and Florida, as well as the airfield – later named Henderson Field – that was under construction on Guadalcanal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalcanal_Campaign

In fact Japanese were outnumbered and overwhelmed by allies which mean quantity is on US/Allies side

This prove your claim that quantity doesnt matter is absolutely wrong and stupid to the ground.

See ... another persistent claim of yours is easily debunked again .. because either you just BS whithout knowing proper history or you are lying like your Britts 58 replenishment ship claim.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

OH MY GOD, first you mistaken the topic is about 1944. Now you are saying Japanese Military Garrison is smaller than the US invading Army? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH NAVAL BATTLE? Do the garrison go to the shore and swim and fight each other?

THE TOPIC IS NAVY, NAVY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? How Japanese have less soldier guarding Guadalcanal than the US have anything to do with how many ship Japanese have and how many ship US have?

Just exactly HOW DUMB ARE YOU ?

I am talking about THE NAVAL STRENGTH OF UNITED STATES AND JAPAN FROM PEARL HARBOR AND GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN. Would have thought talking about the Pearl Harbor, the NAVAL battle of Guadalcanal and the very topic of this thread is about French NAVY, would have make you realise the topic at hand is for NAVY, not ARMY



But looks as if you are too dumb to even understand the basic concept of what people are talking about,

Take a look at this thread.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/nvid...st-single-computer-humanity-has-built.561198/

@jhungary claims that AMD is good video processing because it has higher TFLOPS

Hi, Mr Morlook.

 

[antonius123]

Dude, everything is the same that mean no one trait is better, hence number, technology, training, experience and luck are the same, by which it mean number is only one of the quality. But not all the other quality combine. Ie, just because you have 10 destroyer and I have 2, that DOES NOT mean my technology, my training, my experience and my luck is not as good as yours.

So saying that, you are literally echoing my point. Just exactly how dumb are you?

You still fail to grasp.

Nobody said technology - training - experience is difference, in fact the keyword is clear: everything else is the same/equal, the difference is only number.

So you are demonstrating idiocy if you said 2 is same strong as 10 if everything else equal.

Dude, all the above missile cannot turn sharply, eg, do a High G turn. Which is the definition of "Manoeuvre" seems like you are not only have no clue in military matter, but also basic understanding of English, but that figured as you constantly spell Manoeuvre and Brit wrong.

Wrong! missile can sustain high G turn, and (turn) sharply is relative.

So you dont know that BVRAAM Meteor, MIM104 Patriot, SM-6, AIM-120, Brahmos all are supersonic even hypersonic? LOLs

Educate your self:
PAC PAtriot => mach 2.8 (supersonic)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
BVRAAM Metor => mach 4 (hypersonic)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)

And they do maneuver in order to hit target!

Pity you .. come back to me after you learn

You are not only poor in physics but also have no clue in missiles stuffs

How just because the missile is supersonic, lag time wont be a big deal?

So because your missile is supersonic, the time taken to identify the target is less? What's the logic of that?

The majority of lag time come from you try to locate and identity the target, the missile itself won't do that. It have to be done by the operator.

Obviously you don't understand the whole concept of ISTAR.

OMG .. I said: Radar onboard can handle that! do you understand?

Nobody said "the time taken to identify the target is less", your idiocy is too much...

You obviously dont understand about radar & tracking system onboard, and have no clue about it.

First of all, Albert Einstein principle of relativity is not about movement. YOU EVEN FAILED TO GET THIS RIGHT. Principle of Relativity is about law of physics can be commonly applies to all spectrum of medium, which one of them is time.

The closest to your point is The Newton Third law of motion suggest a force of equal but opposite force to applies if a force is applies on a subject, not from Einstein. But Newton First law stated that if a force is applies to a inert medium, an object is either remain at rest or continue to move with a constant velocity unless act upon by a force. Space is an inert medium, which mean if the object move, it will move with a constant velocity and WILL NOT STOP until a force is exerted on it.

So, you failed to even grasp the basic principle of relativity, lol, talk about primary level physics. Heck, you even get the theory of Einstein and Newton mixed together, Einstein is a quantum physicist, his law would have to be about METAPHYSICS, not movement or physical spectrum, NEWTON is an applied physicist, his theory would be about actual physics.

Totally wrong! Your physics must be very bad during high school!

Albert Einstein general relativity is about motion (movement).
Motion is relative, satellite could be stationary to earth but move relatively to other (moon, plane, other satellites, etc).

Educate yourself:
https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/einsteins-special-relativity/

Furthermore not all satellites are geostationary, many of them are moving to earth.

My advice is: back to junior high school and seriously learn physics.

Also you obviously don't have clue about satellites

lol, that mean you have no point on the argument.

Count the ship in the website on RN, RFA and Serco yourself, it exceed 58 ship in supporting role, and THAT IS BEFORE I COUNT United Kingdom Merchant Navy.

Only dumbarse like you can shoot yourself on the foot like this LOL. This is nothing but plain stupid.

The point is you are not trustworthy

Count it yourself. They are not more than 15 for replenishment including from Serco.

LOL, technology always matter, people buy equipment is about technology, if you don't care or already had that technology, why would you buy it to begin with? To say selling more mean their technology is not better is absurd.

But then it come from you, that figured.

Nobody said technology doesnt matter and we dont need care with it.

Technology should be considered along with commonality, after sales, politics and price. Thats the point that you failed to understand.

lol, as I said I don't care about that. I don't need other people to fight my battle, but you?

LOL. As for I am a loser, well, if a loser have 315 positive rating, 27 featured article and a title in this forum, then what is your category when you have 1 and none and none? Super-duper loser?

I don't mind being a loser if I beat you. LOL

Talking about yourself? :

LOLs. Your argument is funny.

Your 315 positive rating doesnt mean you can accuse moderator arbitrarily according to your ego and bias.

The rating is also not an evidence about your knowledge. Not many people is knowledgable and can identify your fraud.

I've told you I am not an active member here while you have been very actively frauding in many section of PDF, no wonder you get that many.

OH MY GOD, first you mistaken the topic is about 1944. Now you are saying Japanese Military Garrison is smaller than the US invading Army? WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH NAVAL BATTLE? Do the garrison go to the shore and swim and fight each other?

THE TOPIC IS NAVY, NAVY. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? How Japanese have less soldier guarding Guadalcanal than the US have anything to do with how many ship Japanese have and how many ship US have?

Just exactly HOW DUMB ARE YOU ?

I am talking about THE NAVAL STRENGTH OF UNITED STATES AND JAPAN FROM PEARL HARBOR AND GUADALCANAL CAMPAIGN. Would have thought talking about the Pearl Harbor, the NAVAL battle of Guadalcanal and the very topic of this thread is about French NAVY, would have make you realise the topic at hand is for NAVY, not ARMY



But looks as if you are too dumb to even understand the basic concept of what people are talking about,

LOLs. Are you dementia?

First, we are talking about "QUANTITY" that you underestimate.... Guadalcanal case prove that Quantity make US win!

Second, if we are talking simply about NAVY war only, then Guadalcanal Campaign is wrong case that you brag! because Guadalcanal case it not only NAVY war! You contradict yourself.

Third, Guadalcanal case is about Japan vs Allied (not only US) so if you think it is paradox because US Navy is weak but win, then you are totally wrong! Because Allied force outnumber Japan! Thats the point that Quantity win.

Pity you, unwittingly you are demonstrating Idiocy to the ground level

See, the more BS the more you are debunked and loose your credibility.

Hi, Mr Morlook.

Is that all you can do to counter him? So immature. LOL

 

[Nilgiri]

@jhungary @gambit @Vergennes

It is just going in circles now, I think both sides have long since convinced whoever (audience wise) is most relevant to them.

This is the problem when you have no actual undisputable correctional evidence (in decades) at the scales needed to standardise data/hypothetical "drift" factor between major powers.

It basically becomes who can shout loudest and longest, and that is often inversely proportional to who has the actual knowledge and/or has actual things to do outside here.

 

[j20blackdragon]

PAC-3 missed five times in a row against a single Houthi missile in 2017.

US missile defenses fired 5 shots at an incoming target — and it looks as if they all missed
http://www.businessinsider.com/us-missile-defenses-fired-5-saudi-houthi-riyadh-missed-2017-12

CM-400AKG is Mach 4 plus and capable of targeting aircraft carriers. Active radar seeker and IIR seeker with target recognition are options. This is a fire-and-forget missile.

DF-21D is Mach 10.

DF-26 is even faster.

HGV can maintain these speeds and maneuver at the same time.

 

[xunzi]

LOL, did he "owned" me? His post make no sense, he has no backup, and most important of all, he can dish insult but he could not take it, I did reply to his post and it was taken down by a moderator.

So, tell me, how exactly did he own me? LOL

He had provided link source and video to demonstrate his points which anyone can read and see. You did nothing but provide your bias assumption and making false reference to something he did not make. Even trying to downplay the DF-26 by claiming it hasn't been test on moving aircraft carrier which is the most idiotic thing a person can say. Any person with a small brain can tell that the problem with doing that real test require enormous amount of money to build, and most importantly cost of life. Who is going to donate to China an AC ship and have someone to operate in an open ocean while China can live a fire test explosion? LOL

Two, you have been making some crazy claim about France that even the US fanboy are shaking their head right now. Example, a satellite doesn't move in space like WTF. Lol

 

[Jlaw]

He had provided link source and video to demonstrate his points which anyone can read and see. You did nothing but provide your bias assumption and making false reference to something he did not make. Even trying to downplay the DF-26 by claiming it hasn't been test on moving aircraft carrier which is the most idiotic thing a person can say. Any person with a small brain can tell that the problem with doing that real test require enormous amount of money to build, and most importantly cost of life. Who is going to donate to China an AC ship and have someone to operate in an open ocean while China can live a fire test explosion? LOL

Two, you have been making some crazy claim about France that even the US fanboy are shaking their head right now. Example, a satellite doesn't move in space like WTF. Lol

That's why Gambit is distancing himself from him and remaining silence

 

[fallstuff]

The French Navy Stands Up to China
As we steamed through the disputed Spratly Islands, a voice demanded we radio our intentions.

Tree Island, in the Paracel island chain of the South China Sea, Jan. 28. Photo: Center for Strategic and International Studies/Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative/DigitalGlobe via AFP/Getty Images
By
Jonas Parello-Plesner
June 7, 2018 6:48 p.m. ET
203 COMMENTS

‘This is China warship calling,” a voice bellowed out over the radio. “The Nansha islands are under Chinese sovereignty. What are your intentions?” The reply from the French military vessel, where I was on the command bridge as an observer last week, was polite but curt. The French said their ships were operating in international waters. We were passing through the disputed Spratly Islands of the South China Sea when the Chinese frigate dialed in. It would not be our last encounter.

Several Chinese frigates and corvettes closely tailed our passage around Mischief, Subi and Fiery Cross Reefs. Those specks of land have popped up in international headlines in recent years as Beijing has transformed them into artificial islands with airstrips and military installations.

This past weekend at the Shangri-la Dialogue, U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis called out China’s aggression as breaking Xi Jinping’s promises. “China’s militarization of the Spratlys,” Mr. Mattis said, is in “direct contradiction to President Xi’s 2015 public assurances in the White House Rose Garden that they would not do this.”

Backing up American words, the U.S. rescinded China’s invitation to participate in joint military exercises in the Pacific. The U.S. Navy also conducted its own freedom-of-navigation operation in the disputed Paracel Islands, on which China recently landed a strategic bomber. Still, the Trump administration has not presented a broader strategy to counter China. What is sure is that the U.S. could use allied assistance.

Americans are used to hearing about lazy European allies unwilling to pay for their own defense. They should consider the French action. Since 2014, France has sailed regularly through the South China Sea to uphold freedom of navigation. France remains a naval power that can project force out of its overseas territories, including French Polynesia, New Caledonia and Réunion Island. President Emmanuel Macron is building stronger defense relationships with India and Australia, and he seems to be realistically assessing the growing Chinese challenge. This is a welcome change from his predecessors, who were enthralled by the business and investment opportunities in China.

France is rallying other Europeans to put action behind the declarations of free navigation. That was the message at the Shangri-la Dialogue from French Defense Minister Florence Parly. “The fait accompli is not a fait accepted,” she said, a clear reference to Chinese attempts to deny international access to disputed waters. France’s missions could be the foundation for a multinational European operation. European Union leaders remain split on how to approach China. But as a first step, the French warship I was on included a U.K. helicopter detachment and European observers, including from Germany.

China tries to frame the freedom-of-navigation operations as driven by U.S. expansionism. That’s why Beijing protests American exercises while giving those by France, Australia and the U.K. a pass. Even an increasing number of Western operations might not break China’s de facto stranglehold on the South China Sea. But as French warships have now demonstrated, the coalition for free navigation is growing.

Mr. Parello-Plesner is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-french-navy-stands-up-to-china-1528411691

Taking a stand is not a known French thing, the writer is wrong !!

 

[jhungary]

You still fail to grasp.

Nobody said technology - training - experience is difference, in fact the keyword is clear: everything else is the same/equal, the difference is only number.

So you are demonstrating idiocy if you said 2 is same strong as 10 if everything else equal.

How illogical?

Technology, Training and Experience is ALWAYS difference. Unless both side come from the same technological background, have the same military history, and have the same training regime, Technology, Training and Experience is and ALWAYS is difference.

Do you think China have the same training quality to French? Or you think China is going to have the same experience level as the French?

Wrong! missile can sustain high G turn, and (turn) sharply is relative.

So you dont know that BVRAAM Meteor, MIM104 Patriot, SM-6, AIM-120, Brahmos all are supersonic even hypersonic? LOLs

Educate your self:
PAC PAtriot => mach 2.8 (supersonic)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIM-104_Patriot
BVRAAM Metor => mach 4 (hypersonic)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_(missile)

And they do maneuver in order to hit target!

Pity you .. come back to me after you learn

You are not only poor in physics but also have no clue in missiles stuffs

Dumbarse, Supersonic missile cannot do High G Turn, in fact, missile cannot OUTTURN a fighter, because the shape of the missile did not allow them to change the fluid dynamic (lacking of large surface area wing, aileron and flap).

https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/17/evading-air-to-air-missile/

Missile intercept their target with SPEED, which mean the missile try to hit the target BEFORE the target turn, you know why? That's because missile CANNOT pull high G turn itself.

And you claim to be an aviation expert? do tell me under fluid dynamic law, how a missile can turn sharply (or a High G turn) if you can state the principle of any law that allow a missile do a High G turn without wing, flap and aileron, I gladly retract my statement and issue an apology.

@gambit

OMG .. I said: Radar onboard can handle that! do you understand?

So, the radar on board the missile can detect the target intended to fire on at least 2600 kilometre meters away? Wow, your missile radar is so advance, it is OUT OF THIS WORLD...

Also, How big is your missile?

A normal Ground radar (ADS) used in the airport can have a detection zone for 4-500KM, it is a 4 story high and about 100 feet wide, which usually filled up the roof of a ATC tower. So, your missile must be at least 4 to 5 times as big as a ground ATC structure?

Also, even Ground radar cannot pick up target more than 2000 KM, the earth curvature would almost certainly guarantee the object is hidden by the earth curvature.

please do show me how a DF-whatever onboard radar can pick up a target 2000 miles away?

Nobody said "the time taken to identify the target is less", your idiocy is too much...

You obviously dont understand about radar & tracking system onboard, and have no clue about it.

umm, I am not the one that say a missile radar can detect a target 2000 miles away.

You said the lag time is not affected, which can only mean 2 things.

1.) Missile itself can detect the target BEFORE it fire by itself. Which mean the missile radar have more than 2000 mile range.
2.) You only detect the target AFTER you launch the missile, which mean you are firing it blind, which is against the ISTAR law.

Either way, both suggest you know nothing about how ISTAR work, dumbarse.

Totally wrong! Your physics must be very bad during high school!

Albert Einstein general relativity is about motion (movement).
Motion is relative, satellite could be stationary to earth but move relatively to other (moon, plane, other satellites, etc).

Educate yourself:
https://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/einsteins-special-relativity/

Furthermore not all satellites are geostationary, many of them are moving to earth.

My advice is: back to junior high school and seriously learn physics.

Also you obviously don't have clue about satellites

Dumbarse, again, he try to explain the Principle of Relativity in a special case, in this case, movement.

And that is also what I said as well, he try to explain if two object are moving AT CONSTANT.

This is the quote from your OWN reference

Special relativity includes only the special case (hence the name) where the motion is uniform. The motion it explains is only if you’re traveling in a straight line at a constant speed. As soon as you accelerate or curve — or do anything that changes the nature of the motion in any way — special relativity ceases to apply. That’s where Einstein’s general theory of relativity comes in, because it can explain the general case of any sort of motion.

By the way, that exactly follow the principle of Newtown Third Law.

If you move your satellite in inert medium, This Special Case of relativity CEASED to apply.

LOL at your lack of knowledge on Satellite.

The point is you are not trustworthy

Count it yourself. They are not more than 15 for replenishment including from Serco.

15? So, this is 15 ships?

Worldwide support ship

• SD Victoria Based at Portsmouth

Multi-purpose ship

• SD Northern River

Anchor handling tug

• Kingdom of Fife

Heavy lift ship

• Cameron

Moor-class diving support vessels

• SD Moorfowl Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Moorhen Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Multicat 2510-class recovery vessels

• SD Navigator Based at Portsmouth
• SD Raasay Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Multicat 2613-class utility boat

• SD Angeline Based at Faslane

Recovery vessels

• SD Inspector Based at Portsmouth
• SD Engineer Based at Devonport

Coastal oilers

• SD Teesdale Based at Portsmouth
• SD Oilman Based at Faslane
• SD Waterpress Based at Faslane
• SD Oceanspray Based at Portsmouth

Damen ART 80-32 tug

• SD Tempest Based at Portsmouth, designated tug for Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers

Impulse-class tugs

• SD Impulse Based at Faslane
• SD Impetus Based at Faslane

ASD 2509-class tugs

• SD Independent Based at Portsmouth
• SD Indulgent Based at Portsmouth

ATD 2909-class tugs

• SD Reliable Based at Faslane
• SD Bountiful Based at Portsmouth
• SD Resourceful Based at Faslane
• SD Dependable Based at Faslane

Twin Unit Tractor Tugs

• SD Adept Based at Devonport
• SD Careful Based at Devonport
• SD Faithful Based at Devonport
• SD Forceful Based at Devonport
• SD Powerful Based at Devonport

STAN 2608-class tugs

• SD Hercules Based at Devonport
• SD Jupiter Based at Faslane
• SD Mars Based at Devonport

ASD 2009-class tugs

• SD Christina Based at Portsmouth
• SD Deborah Based at Devonport
• SD Eileen Based at Devonport
• SD Suzanne Based at Portsmouth

Felicity-class water tractors

• SD Florence Based at Devonport
• SD Frances Based at Devonport
• SD Genevieve Based at Portsmouth
• SD Helen Based at Portsmouth

Pushy Cat 1204-class tugs

• SD Catherine Based at Portsmouth
• SD Emily Based at Devonport

STAN 1405-class tug

• SD Tilly Based at Devonport

Trials vessels

• SD Warden Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Kyle of Lochalsh Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Storm-class tenders

• SD Bovisand Based at Devonport
• SD Cawsand Based at Devonport

Newhaven-class tenders

• SD Newhaven Based at Devonport
• SD Nutbourne Based at Portsmouth
• SD Netley Based at Portsmouth

Padstow-class tender

• SD Padstow Based at Devonport

Oban-class tenders

• SD Oban Based at Devonport
• SD Oronsay Based at Faslane
• SD Omagh Based at Faslane

Personnel ferries

• SD Norton Based at Portsmouth
• SD Eva Based at Faslane

Fleet tenders

• SD Melton Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Menai Based at Falmouth
• SD Meon Based at Falmouth

STAN 1505-class tenders

• SD Clyde Racer Based at Faslane
• SD Solent Racer Based at Portsmouth
• SD Tamar Racer Based at Devonport

STAN 1905-class tenders

• SD Clyde Spirit Based at Faslane
• SD Solent Spirit Based at Portsmouth
• SD Tamar Spirit Based at Devonport

Again, support does not mean just resupply oil, it mean resupplying EVERYTHING, even towing service is a supporting role.

Nobody said technology doesnt matter and we dont need care with it.

Technology should be considered along with commonality, after sales, politics and price. Thats the point that you failed to understand.

As I point it out, Politics is not considered in most Western-allied country, otherwise South Korea would not have used T-80 and Ka-52. About money, are you meant to say Chinese weapon is more expensive than Western Weapon? Because being cheaper is more attractive in a deal.

You failed to digest nobody is buying Chinese ship is because they are not more advance than the western. And you try to spin it other way, which I own you on that.

LOLs. Your argument is funny.

Your 315 positive rating doesnt mean you can accuse moderator arbitrarily according to your ego and bias.

The rating is also not an evidence about your knowledge. Not many people is knowledgable and can identify your fraud.

I've told you I am not an active member here while you have been very actively frauding in many section of PDF, no wonder you get that many.

The fundamental argument is that if a knowledgeable people cannot identify me as fraud, which either mean the knowledgably people is NOT knowledgeable, or I am not a fraud, in which case, I am above both people.

And you are active in this forum, you have 1000+ post, I have 9000, so if you are the real deal, you should have at least 1/9 my rating.

You are shit in this forum, nobody care what you think other than your buddies, that's why you have no impact on this forum? Even if I actually defrauding these people, they are happy about it and give me a rating, what that say about you? You failed to even please those not so knowledgeable people to have a rating.

And you spell knowledgeable wrong and there are no such word as frauding.

And as I said, I am always ready for you to challenge any topic I post. As long as there is a fair and just moderation which my post is not going to be delete by your mod buddies.

LOLs. Are you dementia?

First, we are talking about "QUANTITY" that you underestimate.... Guadalcanal case prove that Quantity make US win!

Second, if we are talking simply about NAVY war only, then Guadalcanal Campaign is wrong case that you brag! because Guadalcanal case it not only NAVY war! You contradict yourself.

Third, Guadalcanal case is about Japan vs Allied (not only US) so if you think it is paradox because US Navy is weak but win, then you are totally wrong! Because Allied force outnumber Japan! Thats the point that Quantity win.

Pity you, unwittingly you are demonstrating Idiocy to the ground level

See, the more BS the more you are debunked and loose your credibility.

Is that all you can do to counter him? So immature. LOL

Dumbass, you are the one that say if they lost a Naval battle, how the Brits land the Marine? Do you have dementia? And my point is that Naval Battle did not conclude the ultimate strategic objective, which is in this case, landing troop and marine to area of Operation

The Guadalcanal case is an exact 1 to 1 copy to the Falkland Campaign, in the beginning the US have less ship than Japanese, and lost both First battle of Guadalcanal and Battle of the Eastern Solomon, despite this fact, the American land MORE troop in Guadalcanal.

The Guadalcanal campaign is NOT used to reference the fact that Quantity leading to winning a war. I use it to point out the Tactical defeat (Naval battle) have no relation to Strategic Victory (Being able to land troop) This is my original post on quoting the Guadalcanal campaign.

How dumb is your brain that constantly

You use Falkland to compare to a French-China naval engagement. (There are 21 battles in total during Falkland, only 3 are Naval Engagement), then you don't know what is the different between tactical and strategic objective and say "If naval war failed, they aren't going to land the troop". Then how US landed trooped in Guadalcanal in 1942 if what you said is true? When US fleet was about all but destroyed by the Pearl Harbor strike, and suffer another blow in the first battle of the Guadalcanal? That was on the deleted post. But well.

LOL at your Military history, and yes, you can keep calling me a illogical person or can't do simple maths, or straight up call me an idiots, and you are immune from this section.

Such a giant Dumbass, til now still don't know what the topic is refer to.

He had provided link source and video to demonstrate his points which anyone can read and see. You did nothing but provide your bias assumption and making false reference to something he did not make. Even trying to downplay the DF-26 by claiming it hasn't been test on moving aircraft carrier which is the most idiotic thing a person can say. Any person with a small brain can tell that the problem with doing that real test require enormous amount of money to build, and most importantly cost of life. Who is going to donate to China an AC ship and have someone to operate in an open ocean while China can live a fire test explosion? LOL

Two, you have been making some crazy claim about France that even the US fanboy are shaking their head right now. Example, a satellite doesn't move in space like WTF. Lol

Link what? A missile fired at a stationary target? And that proof anything? I provided fact, because I have provided HISTORICAL case that is saying otherwise.

Who said a moving ship have to be an old AC? You can rig a ship similar size to an AC and test fire it. Does US navy have a lot of spare AC or naval ship spared to test their weapon? And it is not hard to rig a ship to remotely move as a targeting bait, if China have to do it, they can simply rig a oil tanker andtest fire it on it. Which happened a lot with the US Navy.

And he said China can fight a war in French coast and I am making a crazy claim?

And Satellite itself did not move, they orbit, the word "move" he used and I used have difference meaning, satellite move in a general sense by orbiting (Which in this case, satellite itself actually don't move, but the earth does), but you cannot "MOVE" a satellite because doing so will phase the satellite out of the orbit, then you will lost that satellite because in space, there are no friction to stop an object from moving.

You know the different between moving and orbiting? Moving is changing direction and speed of an object, in space, that will mean the you will not be able to stop unless a precise speed and direction opposite to the movement is applied.

Orbiting on the other hand, is a gravitational pull of an object with respect to the earth and the object orbit as the earth itself orbiting the sun.

Anyone know how Satellite work know these two facts, if you say this is a crazy claim, that only mean you know shit about satellite. You have to WAIT for the satellite to orbit above you before you can use it, and you will lose feed when it orbit out of your area, that suggest you CANNOT apply a primary force and "MOVE" a satellite.

All satellite is, for a better word, STATIONARY

As I said, I don't need anyone to fight my case, that is why I did not call anyone on here, unlike someone.

 

[antonius123]

How illogical?

Technology, Training and Experience is ALWAYS difference. Unless both side come from the same technological background, have the same military history, and have the same training regime, Technology, Training and Experience is and ALWAYS is difference.

Do you think China have the same training quality to French? Or you think China is going to have the same experience level as the French?

"IF" ... do you understand that? Of course those things will be different between one to another country.

"IF" used so that the low IQ like you can see and understand the impact of the "variable" that you want to observe thats why the other variables made remain unchanged.

When will you be a little bit smarter? such a low IQ

Dumbarse, Supersonic missile cannot do High G Turn, in fact, missile cannot OUTTURN a fighter, because the shape of the missile did not allow them to change the fluid dynamic (lacking of large surface area wing, aileron and flap).

https://defenseissues.net/2013/08/17/evading-air-to-air-missile/

LOL. Such a Dumbass .. WTF missile cannot high G turn? Missile can sustain much higher G turn than fighter plane you since missile is pilotless you idiot.

All AAM always experience high G turn when they chase fighter, or turning to hit fighter. Dont put yourself very low to the level of newbie.

Missile intercept their target with SPEED, which mean the missile try to hit the target BEFORE the target turn, you know why? That's because missile CANNOT pull high G turn itself.

Obviously you have no clue about AAM. There are many ignorance and clueless that you are demonstrating with your claim.

First, doesnt mean it doesn't maneuver at all you ..if missile doesnt maneuver it will fly with straight line trajectory and have no ability to correct it's trajectory in order to hit the target..... you are such an idiot

Second, furthermore if it doesnt maneuver how come it can chase and hit supersonic fighter like SU27, Mig29, F-16 even F-15 which run more than mach 2?

Third, do you know "No Escape Zone", that means: super agile missile!

Expanding the ‘no-escape zone’
In addition, the enhanced performance of next-generation beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAMs) in particular will significantly expand the ‘no-escape zone’ and increase the range over which air-to-air engagements in future can be fought, enabling pilots to exploit the capabilities of their new aircraft to the full.
the Meteor – a state-of-the-art BVRAAM from European manufacturer MBDA – as its principal air-to-air weapon system. Said to offer world-beating air superiority, Meteor is a fast and agile missile, with what is claimed to be the largest ‘no-escape zone’ of any air-to-air weapon.
https://www.airforce-technology.com...to-air-missiles-expanding-the-no-escape-zone/
​

Fourth, do you know with "Off Bore Sight" you can shoot AA missile to enemy behind you at supersonic speed? means: missile will do U turn and of course it is a very high G and extreme turn as the launching fighter itself already fly above mach 1, even supersonic mach 2.

missile do high G U turn at supersonic speed to hit enemy behind

Missile with supersonic speed do sharp maneuver!

​

Now, we are talking YJ-12 anti ship missile which just do ZigZag maneuver which bear much less G force compared to AAM above.

See .. you are talking RUBBISH!!!

You need to learn a lot, as you obviously have no clue about Air to Air Missile

And you claim to be an aviation expert? do tell me under fluid dynamic law, how a missile can turn sharply (or a High G turn) if you can state the principle of any law that allow a missile do a High G turn without wing, flap and aileron, I gladly retract my statement and issue an apology.

Hellaw ... do you live in reality?

Tell me how "in which universe" the mechanical fluid law will prevent a missile to to maneuver and which physical law that prevent it?

Then why in reality supersonic (AIM-120, phyton, PL1-10, etc), even hypersonic (ICBM, SM-6, Meteor, PL-15, Brahmos) do maneuver?

@gambit
So, the radar on board the missile can detect the target intended to fire on at least 2600 kilometre meters away? Wow, your missile radar is so advance, it is OUT OF THIS WORLD...

Also, How big is your missile?

A normal Ground radar (ADS) used in the airport can have a detection zone for 4-500KM, it is a 4 story high and about 100 feet wide, which usually filled up the roof of a ATC tower. So, your missile must be at least 4 to 5 times as big as a ground ATC structure?

Also, even Ground radar cannot pick up target more than 2000 KM, the earth curvature would almost certainly guarantee the object is hidden by the earth curvature.

please do show me how a DF-whatever onboard radar can pick up a target 2000 miles away?

Hahahaha ... your question is a solid evidence that you have no clue about missile and radar.

Very simple: in the initial phase the missile will be guided by the radar in the fighter plane or from ground radar when the missile is relatively near to the target, then it will use it's own onboard radar/sensor. Thats the way it works. So you dont know about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance

Obviously you need to read and educate yourself about missile & radar stuff as you are talking without clue

umm, I am not the one that say a missile radar can detect a target 2000 miles away.

You said the lag time is not affected, which can only mean 2 things.

1.) Missile itself can detect the target BEFORE it fire by itself. Which mean the missile radar have more than 2000 mile range.
2.) You only detect the target AFTER you launch the missile, which mean you are firing it blind, which is against the ISTAR law.

Either way, both suggest you know nothing about how ISTAR work, dumbarse.

Wrong. From 2000 mile and at the initial phase the missile will depend on ground radar (such OTH etc), then when it is approaching the carrier it will be guided by signal from satellites or from UAV (if it is DF-21D or DF-26), when it is nearby the target (terminal phase) it will use it's own onboard radar/sensor.

Thats how the guidance system work! Therefore the lag time wont be a problem either at initial phase until terminal phase.

Hahahahaha ... clueless jhungary

Dumbarse, again, he try to explain the Principle of Relativity in a special case, in this case, movement.

And that is also what I said as well, he try to explain if two object are moving AT CONSTANT.

This is the quote from your OWN reference


By the way, that exactly follow the principle of Newtown Third Law.

If you move your satellite in inert medium, This Special Case of relativity CEASED to apply.

LOL at your lack of knowledge on Satellite.

Still your claim that satellite doesn't move is hilariously wrong!

If you really understand newtown third law, you should have known that any object is moving and halt relatively, means: you cant say a thing is not moving!

Satellite is always moving to another object! even if the sattellite is geostationary.

And there are many satellites which are not geostationary and they move against earth.

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/remote/lecture_notes/satellite/platforms/poe_scan_strat.html

15? So, this is 15 ships?

Worldwide support ship

• SD Victoria Based at Portsmouth

Multi-purpose ship

• SD Northern River

Anchor handling tug

• Kingdom of Fife

Heavy lift ship

• Cameron

Moor-class diving support vessels

• SD Moorfowl Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Moorhen Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Multicat 2510-class recovery vessels

• SD Navigator Based at Portsmouth
• SD Raasay Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Multicat 2613-class utility boat

• SD Angeline Based at Faslane

Recovery vessels

• SD Inspector Based at Portsmouth
• SD Engineer Based at Devonport

Coastal oilers

• SD Teesdale Based at Portsmouth
• SD Oilman Based at Faslane
• SD Waterpress Based at Faslane
• SD Oceanspray Based at Portsmouth

Damen ART 80-32 tug

• SD Tempest Based at Portsmouth, designated tug for Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers

Impulse-class tugs

• SD Impulse Based at Faslane
• SD Impetus Based at Faslane

ASD 2509-class tugs

• SD Independent Based at Portsmouth
• SD Indulgent Based at Portsmouth

ATD 2909-class tugs

• SD Reliable Based at Faslane
• SD Bountiful Based at Portsmouth
• SD Resourceful Based at Faslane
• SD Dependable Based at Faslane

Twin Unit Tractor Tugs

• SD Adept Based at Devonport
• SD Careful Based at Devonport
• SD Faithful Based at Devonport
• SD Forceful Based at Devonport
• SD Powerful Based at Devonport

STAN 2608-class tugs

• SD Hercules Based at Devonport
• SD Jupiter Based at Faslane
• SD Mars Based at Devonport

ASD 2009-class tugs

• SD Christina Based at Portsmouth
• SD Deborah Based at Devonport
• SD Eileen Based at Devonport
• SD Suzanne Based at Portsmouth

Felicity-class water tractors

• SD Florence Based at Devonport
• SD Frances Based at Devonport
• SD Genevieve Based at Portsmouth
• SD Helen Based at Portsmouth

Pushy Cat 1204-class tugs

• SD Catherine Based at Portsmouth
• SD Emily Based at Devonport

STAN 1405-class tug

• SD Tilly Based at Devonport

Trials vessels

• SD Warden Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Kyle of Lochalsh Based at Kyle of Lochalsh

Storm-class tenders

• SD Bovisand Based at Devonport
• SD Cawsand Based at Devonport

Newhaven-class tenders

• SD Newhaven Based at Devonport
• SD Nutbourne Based at Portsmouth
• SD Netley Based at Portsmouth

Padstow-class tender

• SD Padstow Based at Devonport

Oban-class tenders

• SD Oban Based at Devonport
• SD Oronsay Based at Faslane
• SD Omagh Based at Faslane

Personnel ferries

• SD Norton Based at Portsmouth
• SD Eva Based at Faslane

Fleet tenders

• SD Melton Based at Kyle of Lochalsh
• SD Menai Based at Falmouth
• SD Meon Based at Falmouth

STAN 1505-class tenders

• SD Clyde Racer Based at Faslane
• SD Solent Racer Based at Portsmouth
• SD Tamar Racer Based at Devonport

STAN 1905-class tenders

• SD Clyde Spirit Based at Faslane
• SD Solent Spirit Based at Portsmouth
• SD Tamar Spirit Based at Devonport

Again, support does not mean just resupply oil, it mean resupplying EVERYTHING, even towing service is a supporting role.

LOLs. You said Britts have 58 replenishment ship, and from what you mention above - not all is replenishment.

Don't cheating .. dont lie! as I said it will ruin your own credibility

As I point it out, Politics is not considered in most Western-allied country, otherwise South Korea would not have used T-80 and Ka-52. About money, are you meant to say Chinese weapon is more expensive than Western Weapon? Because being cheaper is more attractive in a deal.

Lol. Totally nonsense

Korea buy Russian tank is because Russia offer good package! better than west can offer. By your logic, US tank is worse than Russian.

And use your logic, korea wont buy arms from China, because Korea have high chance to have war or conflict with China.

You failed to digest nobody is buying Chinese ship is because they are not more advance than the western. And you try to spin it other way, which I own you on that.

In what way Chinese ship is less advance than the western?

And also wrong!

Thailand buy submarine from China
https://www.smh.com.au/world/thaila...ve-opposed-by-most-thais-20170506-gvzjiq.html

Pakistan buy old Type 054 fregat from China to replace her old Brittish fregat.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...s-to-replace-british-frigates-modernize-navy/

The fundamental argument is that if a knowledgeable people cannot identify me as fraud, which either mean the knowledgably people is NOT knowledgeable, or I am not a fraud, in which case, I am above both people.

And you are active in this forum, you have 1000+ post, I have 9000, so if you are the real deal, you should have at least 1/9 my rating.

You are shit in this forum, nobody care what you think other than your buddies, that's why you have no impact on this forum? Even if I actually defrauding these people, they are happy about it and give me a rating, what that say about you? You failed to even please those not so knowledgeable people to have a rating.

And you spell knowledgeable wrong and there are no such word as frauding.

And as I said, I am always ready for you to challenge any topic I post. As long as there is a fair and just moderation which my post is not going to be delete by your mod buddies.

Like I said: I dont spread BS in disguise of Knowledge like you do, that is the reason why I dont get much attention and rating in this forum. While like people say you are actively spreading BS and bias opinion in many section of this forum to get thanks and rating, unfortunately in this section there are many smart guy that capable to debunk you easily.

So stop daydreaming to abuse your rating got from bogus and BS to justify your BS. You should bring credible citation to back your claim or opinion! not brag claim to support another claim of yours

Dumbass, you are the one that say if they lost a Naval battle, how the Brits land the Marine? Do you have dementia? And my point is that Naval Battle did not conclude the ultimate strategic objective, which is in this case, landing troop and marine to area of Operation

The Guadalcanal case is an exact 1 to 1 copy to the Falkland Campaign, in the beginning the US have less ship than Japanese, and lost both First battle of Guadalcanal and Battle of the Eastern Solomon, despite this fact, the American land MORE troop in Guadalcanal.

The Guadalcanal campaign is NOT used to reference the fact that Quantity leading to winning a war. I use it to point out the Tactical defeat (Naval battle) have no relation to Strategic Victory (Being able to land troop) This is my original post on quoting the Guadalcanal campaign.

How dumb is your brain that constantly


Such a giant Dumbass, til now still don't know what the topic is refer to.

LOL. Look again at your post #191:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-french-navy-stands-up-to-china.564811/page-13#post-10597035

You were bragging Guadalcanal case in replying me when I was talking about "Quantity is Quality all its own".

Who til now still don't know what the topic is refer to.

In fact your Guadalcanal case prove 2 things:

1. US + allied navy won against Japan! contrary to your claim that Japan navy defeat US & Ally navy, so yes if you push Guadalcanal as the comparison with Falkland war, both show the same thing: you cant land force if your navy lost. And it doesnt take a genious to see that you would not be able to land force effectively if your enemy's Navy still prevail around that area.

2. Quantity is the reason of Ally won the war! :p

All satellite is, for a better word, STATIONARY

As I said, I don't need anyone to fight my case, that is why I did not call anyone on here, unlike someone.

Rubbish!! Not all satellites are geostationary.

Dont talk something you dont have clue, you will be embarrased when you are debunked.

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/remote/lecture_notes/satellite/platforms/poe_scan_strat.html

 

[jhungary]

"IF" ... do you understand that? Of course those things will be different between one to another country.

"IF" used so that the low IQ like you can see and understand the impact of the "variable" that you want to observe thats why the other variables made remain unchanged.

When will you be a little bit smarter? such a low IQ

So, no response?

Do you even know what are you talking about? First you said they are the same, then you said of course they are different between one to another country.

lol SUCH A HIGH IQ PERSON....LOL

LOL. Such a Dumbass .. WTF missile cannot high G turn? Missile can sustain much higher G turn than fighter plane you since missile is pilotless you idiot.

All AAM always experience high G turn when they chase fighter, or turning to hit fighter. Dont put yourself very low to the level of newbie.

So, no physical proof that to counter my point then?

I asked how missile is going to pull a high G turn without wings, aileron and flap, you give me a personal insult lol....Since when is personal insult is an answer?

Dumbass.

Obviously you have no clue about AAM. There are many ignorance and clueless that you are demonstrating with your claim.

First, doesnt mean it doesn't maneuver at all you ..if missile doesnt maneuver it will fly with straight line trajectory and have no ability to correct it's trajectory in order to hit the target..... you are such an idiot

Since when did I say missile don't turn?

I said missile not been able to pull a high G turn and cannot out turn a fighter.

You are such a Moron.

Second, furthermore if it doesnt maneuver how come it can chase and hit supersonic fighter like SU27, Mig29, F-16 even F-15 which run more than mach 2?

Do you know what is the "Course of Intercept?" Missile travel from point A to point B quicker than a fighter, which mean it can intercept the fighter before the pilot can perform any move, but fighter can turn tighter than a missile. You still yet to explain how aerodynamically a missile can pull a High G turn without wings, aileron and flap. You can keep talking shit that does not mean.

Explain to me, how a missle can change its course suddenly using fluid dynamic example, and I gladly retract my statement.

Third, do you know "No Escape Zone", that means: super agile missile!

Expanding the ‘no-escape zone’
In addition, the enhanced performance of next-generation beyond visual range air-to-air missiles (BVRAAMs) in particular will significantly expand the ‘no-escape zone’ and increase the range over which air-to-air engagements in future can be fought, enabling pilots to exploit the capabilities of their new aircraft to the full.
the Meteor – a state-of-the-art BVRAAM from European manufacturer MBDA – as its principal air-to-air weapon system. Said to offer world-beating air superiority, Meteor is a fast and agile missile, with what is claimed to be the largest ‘no-escape zone’ of any air-to-air weapon.
https://www.airforce-technology.com...to-air-missiles-expanding-the-no-escape-zone/

​

So, is a missile agile that mean they can pull a high G turn, the whole passage not once did the writer use the term High G turn. In fact, meteor service manual which you can download in MBDA website (can't quote here since it was a PDF) saying the maximum stainable G is < 6G, which is less than almost all fighter aircraft there are

Having a large no escape zone does not mean they can pull high G, it just mean they can have some degree of movement and minimize the chance the fighter dodging the missile. If Missile can perform more G than fighter, then fighter would be guarantee shot down by the missile.

Dumbass.



​

Fourth, do you know with "Off Bore Sight" you can shoot AA missile to enemy behind you at supersonic speed? means: missile will do U turn and of course it is a very high G and extreme turn as the launching fighter itself already fly above mach 1, even supersonic mach 2.

missile do high G U turn at supersonic speed to hit enemy behind

missile with supersonic speed do maneuver!

https://media.giphy.com/media/65MvYUDRhUmxcALvME/giphy.gif

​

Dumbass, that does not mean you can shoot down the enemy from immediately behind you, the seeker on AIM-9X is only active when you have a 5nm gap between you and your enemy, that's safety issue because if you can go back and chase the enemy, the missile without proximity seeker safety will explode you along with your enemy.

It was on Raytheon website, look up for it genius.


​

Now, we are talking YJ-12 anti ship missile which just do ZigZag maneuver which bear much less G force compared to AAM above.

You need to learn a lot, as you obviously have no clue about Air to Air Missile

Dumbass, you explain nothing, and you still did not explain to me how an object travel in Mach 4 can pull high G turn without wings, aileron and flap.

Looks like you need to learn a lot, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.

Hellaw ... do you live in reality?

Tell me how "in which universe" the mechanical fluid law will prevent a missile to to maneuver and which physical law that prevent it?

Then why in reality supersonic (AIM-120, phyton, PL1-10, etc), even hypersonic (ICBM, SM-6, Meteor, PL-15, Brahmos) do maneuver?

You do know to change direction in air, you will need to alter the fluid flow of the air in order to change direction, that is basic principle of flight, that's why aircraft rudder, aileron and flap are all MOVABLE parts. Unlike car, which road surface offer friction and the force generated by the friction is pulling the car to each side. Air as a medium does not offer as much friction to flight surface.

Without movable flight surface, according to Bernoulli's Principle, you cannot control a flight. Because in a steady flow, the sum of all forms of energy in a fluid along a streamline is the same at all points on that streamline, which mean the movement would be constant, and unless the streamline being alter, that will continue to hold true, that is why in any aircraft, you need to change the flight surface to get out of this constant.

Just because you say AIM-120 et al is manoeuvrable does not mean they are, you are not the god of aviation, and judging you don't even know you need to alter the flight surface to change direction of flight, you know jack shit about



COmon, keep talking, you know jack shit about fluid mechanic and you know it.

Hahahaha ... your question is a solid evidence that you have no clue about missile and radar.

Very simple: in the initial phase the missile will be guided by the radar in the fighter plane or from ground radar when the missile is relatively near to the target, then it will use it's own onboard radar/sensor. Thats the way it works. So you dont know about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile_guidance

Obviously you need to read and educate yourself about missile & radar stuff as you are talking without clue

Again, dumbass, that mean you will have to incur third party to track the target for you. How do you transfer one data from your fighter to the ship and how long does it take to do such a transfer? THIS IS THE LAG TIME.

You are describing the lag time yourself and you don't realise it, such a dumbass.

Wrong. From 2000 mile and at the initial phase the missile will depend on ground radar (such OTH etc), then when it is approaching the carrier it will be guided by signal from satellites or from UAV (if it is DF-21D or DF-26), when it is nearby the target (terminal phase) it will use it's own onboard radar/sensor.

Thats how the guidance system work! Therefore the lag time wont be a problem either at initial phase until terminal phase.

Wow, your ground radar can detect something from 2000 miles out? Even above the earth curvature?

Most OTH radar detected within 2000KM not 2000 miles

And no, the lag time will still be an issue, and in hours, not minutes if you depend on third party surveillance. How do your ground radar know what is the target? It can detect contact in a certain range, that does not mean you know what that contact is? It could be an aircraft carrier you are looking for, or a passing cruise ship, or even your own carrier. The ability to detect something mean shit in ISTAR cycle, from detection to identification, there is a time delay, and this time delay is the lag time.

Such a dumbass try to talk ISTAR to me when you know the square root of jack shit on it. LOL

Hahahahaha ... clueless jhungary

Hahahaha such a dumbass.

Still your claim that satellite doesn't move is hilariously wrong!

If you really understand newtown third law, you should have known that any object is moving and halt relatively, means: you cant say a thing is not moving!

Satellite is always moving to another object! even if the sattellite is geostationary.

And there are many satellites which are not geostationary and they move against earth.

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/remote/lecture_notes/satellite/platforms/poe_scan_strat.html

Moron, the principle of relativity mean everything is relative, which mean they are either all static or all dynamic.

Orbiting mean the object is stationary in orbit, it "moves" because the earth moves and it drag the object itself, the object itself DOES NOT MOVE. If you stand still in a street and time is still passing and that does not mean you are not moving in time. That is the principle of relativity.

Newton third law suggest unless a force is applies on an object that is either stationary or moving, the object will keep a constant at the state, if it was at 0km/h before, without a force applied, it will stay at 0km/h. But if an object is travelling with constant speed in an inert medium. A force applies will change the course of the object and IT WILL NOT BE STOP until another force applies that equal but opposite to that force.

If you can move your satellite, according to NEWTON third law, how are you going to stop it from moving in space?

Such a stupid dumbass.

LOLs. You said Britts have 58 replenishment ship, and from what you mention above - not all is replenishment.

Don't cheating .. dont lie! as I said it will ruin your own credibility

First of all, your English suck, no one say Don't Cheating. It's don't cheat.

Secondly, You yourself confused between Underway replenishment and Replenishment Ship. As I said, Every kind of support is part of Underway Replenishment, and only ship that refuel other ship is a replenishment ship.

All of them RN + RFA + Serco are Replenishment service, they have 58+ ship, that does not mean all 58 are replenishment ship.

You are too dumb to understand English, and even if you yourself go by your meaning, China did not have 18 replenishment ship, but 11. So, either you are too dumb to not realise you already make a mistake there, or you understood the concept and outright lies. Take you pick.

Lol. Totally nonsense

Korea buy Russian tank is because Russia offer good package! better than west can offer. By your logic, US tank is worse than Russian.

And use your logic, korea wont buy arms from China, because Korea have high chance to have war or conflict with China.

Dumbass, Korea did not buy those tank, Korean lend money to Russia, Russia cannot pay back, and instead, they offer the tank instead. The Korean Army could have say no or could have not induct them into their military, but they did.

And Korean don't buy from China is simply Chinese military hardware is shit. end of story.

In what way Chinese ship is less advance than the western?

And also wrong!

Thailand buy submarine from China
https://www.smh.com.au/world/thaila...ve-opposed-by-most-thais-20170506-gvzjiq.html

Pakistan buy old Type 054 fregat from China to replace her old Brittish fregat.
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2...s-to-replace-british-frigates-modernize-navy/

So, Thailand and Pakistan buy Chinese ship, it must have been better than the West?? LOL

Like I said: I dont spread BS in disguise of Knowledge like you do, that is the reason why I dont get much attention and rating in this forum. While like people say you are actively spreading BS and bias opinion in many section of this forum to get thanks and rating, unfortunately in this section there are many smart guy that capable to debunk you easily.

So stop daydreaming to abuse your rating got from bogus and BS to justify your BS. You should bring credible citation to back your claim or opinion! not brag claim to support another claim of yours

lol, you don't get much attention because your opinion is shit. End of Story, you can think you know a lot of stuff, I cannot stop you from doing so, nor would I want to. People see you are a nuisance and when you FAILED to even score brownie point from your buddy, that mean either the quality of your post is really that shitty, or they don't think you are one of them.

To be a good poster, you need other people recognition, this is not something you said it yourself, you can say you debunk this or expose that, but in the end, if you are doing it outside the Chinese forum here, you are going to get bashed with proper moderation.

Overall, you are shit, and if you think I care how you debunk me? Lol, you can go think that. Would I care about what a cockroach think before I step on him? Nope. You can think you "expose" or "debunk" me, that did NOT EVEN DENT my reputation one bit here on this forum, because your opinion is Neglectable, which mean you are not even worth someone two minute of their time and read about how you "expose" or "debunk" me.

LOLDumbass

ou cant land force if your navy lost. And it doesnt take a genious to see that you would not be able to land force effectively if your enemy's Navy still prevail around that area.

2. Quantity is the reason of Ally won the war! :p

Dumbass, you are absolutely out of your mind



Japanese defeated the US Navy in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese defeated the US navy during the First naval battle of Guadalcanal, yet despite this, US able to land twice as much force than that of the defender.

Whatever happen afterward (How Allied win over Japan) is not in this scope of discussion.

Dumbass like you trying to twist the word and you don't even know what the hell are you talking about. Really such a dumbass. LOL

Rubbish!! Not all satellites are geostationary.

Dont talk something you dont have clue, you will be embarrased when you are debunked.

http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/remote/lecture_notes/satellite/platforms/poe_scan_strat.html

Yeah, I am not you, I know what I am talking about, you on the other hand?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Such a giant douchy Chinese wannabe

 

[antonius123]

So, no response?

Do you even know what are you talking about? First you said they are the same, then you said of course they are different between one to another country.

lol SUCH A HIGH IQ PERSON....LOL



So, no physical proof that to counter my point then?

I asked how missile is going to pull a high G turn without wings, aileron and flap, you give me a personal insult lol....Since when is personal insult is an answer?

Dumbass.


Since when did I say missile don't turn?

I said missile not been able to pull a high G turn and cannot out turn a fighter.

You are such a Moron.




Do you know what is the "Course of Intercept?" Missile travel from point A to point B quicker than a fighter, which mean it can intercept the fighter before the pilot can perform any move, but fighter can turn tighter than a missile. You still yet to explain how aerodynamically a missile can pull a High G turn without wings, aileron and flap. You can keep talking shit that does not mean.

Explain to me, how a missle can change its course suddenly using fluid dynamic example, and I gladly retract my statement.

So, is a missile agile that mean they can pull a high G turn, the whole passage not once did the writer use the term High G turn. In fact, meteor service manual which you can download in MBDA website (can't quote here since it was a PDF) saying the maximum stainable G is < 6G, which is less than almost all fighter aircraft there are

Having a large no escape zone does not mean they can pull high G, it just mean they can have some degree of movement and minimize the chance the fighter dodging the missile. If Missile can perform more G than fighter, then fighter would be guarantee shot down by the missile.

Dumbass.



​

Dumbass, that does not mean you can shoot down the enemy from immediately behind you, the seeker on AIM-9X is only active when you have a 5nm gap between you and your enemy, that's safety issue because if you can go back and chase the enemy, the missile without proximity seeker safety will explode you along with your enemy.

It was on Raytheon website, look up for it genius.


​

Dumbass, you explain nothing, and you still did not explain to me how an object travel in Mach 4 can pull high G turn without wings, aileron and flap.

Looks like you need to learn a lot, you obviously have no clue what you are talking about.





You do know to change direction in air, you will need to alter the fluid flow of the air in order to change direction, that is basic principle of flight, that's why aircraft rudder, aileron and flap are all MOVABLE parts. Unlike car, which road surface offer friction and the force generated by the friction is pulling the car to each side. Air as a medium does not offer as much friction to flight surface.

Without movable flight surface, according to Bernoulli's Principle, you cannot control a flight. Because in a steady flow, the sum of all forms of energy in a fluid along a streamline is the same at all points on that streamline, which mean the movement would be constant, and unless the streamline being alter, that will continue to hold true, that is why in any aircraft, you need to change the flight surface to get out of this constant.

Just because you say AIM-120 et al is manoeuvrable does not mean they are, you are not the god of aviation, and judging you don't even know you need to alter the flight surface to change direction of flight, you know jack shit about



COmon, keep talking, you know jack shit about fluid mechanic and you know it.



Again, dumbass, that mean you will have to incur third party to track the target for you. How do you transfer one data from your fighter to the ship and how long does it take to do such a transfer? THIS IS THE LAG TIME.

You are describing the lag time yourself and you don't realise it, such a dumbass.





Wow, your ground radar can detect something from 2000 miles out? Even above the earth curvature?

Most OTH radar detected within 2000KM not 2000 miles

And no, the lag time will still be an issue, and in hours, not minutes if you depend on third party surveillance. How do your ground radar know what is the target? It can detect contact in a certain range, that does not mean you know what that contact is? It could be an aircraft carrier you are looking for, or a passing cruise ship, or even your own carrier. The ability to detect something mean shit in ISTAR cycle, from detection to identification, there is a time delay, and this time delay is the lag time.

Such a dumbass try to talk ISTAR to me when you know the square root of jack shit on it. LOL



Hahahaha such a dumbass.





Moron, the principle of relativity mean everything is relative, which mean they are either all static or all dynamic.

Orbiting mean the object is stationary in orbit, it "moves" because the earth moves and it drag the object itself, the object itself DOES NOT MOVE. If you stand still in a street and time is still passing and that does not mean you are not moving in time. That is the principle of relativity.

Newton third law suggest unless a force is applies on an object that is either stationary or moving, the object will keep a constant at the state, if it was at 0km/h before, without a force applied, it will stay at 0km/h. But if an object is travelling with constant speed in an inert medium. A force applies will change the course of the object and IT WILL NOT BE STOP until another force applies that equal but opposite to that force.

If you can move your satellite, according to NEWTON third law, how are you going to stop it from moving in space?

Such a stupid dumbass.




First of all, your English suck, no one say Don't Cheating. It's don't cheat.

Secondly, You yourself confused between Underway replenishment and Replenishment Ship. As I said, Every kind of support is part of Underway Replenishment, and only ship that refuel other ship is a replenishment ship.

All of them RN + RFA + Serco are Replenishment service, they have 58+ ship, that does not mean all 58 are replenishment ship.

You are too dumb to understand English, and even if you yourself go by your meaning, China did not have 18 replenishment ship, but 11. So, either you are too dumb to not realise you already make a mistake there, or you understood the concept and outright lies. Take you pick.




Dumbass, Korea did not buy those tank, Korean lend money to Russia, Russia cannot pay back, and instead, they offer the tank instead. The Korean Army could have say no or could have not induct them into their military, but they did.

And Korean don't buy from China is simply Chinese military hardware is shit. end of story.


So, Thailand and Pakistan buy Chinese ship, it must have been better than the West?? LOL








lol, you don't get much attention because your opinion is shit. End of Story, you can think you know a lot of stuff, I cannot stop you from doing so, nor would I want to. People see you are a nuisance and when you FAILED to even score brownie point from your buddy, that mean either the quality of your post is really that shitty, or they don't think you are one of them.

To be a good poster, you need other people recognition, this is not something you said it yourself, you can say you debunk this or expose that, but in the end, if you are doing it outside the Chinese forum here, you are going to get bashed with proper moderation.

Overall, you are shit, and if you think I care how you debunk me? Lol, you can go think that. Would I care about what a cockroach think before I step on him? Nope. You can think you "expose" or "debunk" me, that did NOT EVEN DENT my reputation one bit here on this forum, because your opinion is Neglectable, which mean you are not even worth someone two minute of their time and read about how you "expose" or "debunk" me.

LOLDumbass



Dumbass, you are absolutely out of your mind



Japanese defeated the US Navy in Pearl Harbor, the Japanese defeated the US navy during the First naval battle of Guadalcanal, yet despite this, US able to land twice as much force than that of the defender.

Whatever happen afterward (How Allied win over Japan) is not in this scope of discussion.

Dumbass like you trying to twist the word and you don't even know what the hell are you talking about. Really such a dumbass. LOL



Yeah, I am not you, I know what I am talking about, you on the other hand?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Such a giant douchy Chinese wannabe

You are totally busted why you stubbornly and shamelessly deny?

Do you think that way can save your ruined reputation? LOLs [emoji23]

 

[Nilgiri]

Taking a stand is not a known French thing, the writer is wrong !!

@Vergennes , I dunno why but so many Bangladeshis have this complex to France. It's weird.