US aircraft carrier group deployed for ‘routine patrols’ in S. China Sea

[jhungary]

Oooh i am proving that?

Please explain me - why Indonesia need to depend on US GPS? while Indonesia already has telco satelites.

Why China need Beidou, while she has already have numerous telco sat? as according to you random sats can render as GPS sat as well?

I have been waiting your explanation since weeks ago since I throw this question to you.

My Point, Any Sat can be double as GPS satellite. You said There are ONLY 30 GPS NAVSTAR Satellite in orbit can do that.

My point, Immersat, NOT PART of Galileo, hence, not part of GPS satellite, can be used to calculate the location of MH-370, that proof, you do not need to be part of that Group to be able to pin point a location, that proof my point. Why China need Baidou? WHy Indonesia need NAVSTAR? How would I know? It's the same question why some people have a wife still want to have a girl friend, if you can answer me that, I can answer you your question.

befor that, it prove you are wrong, ANY SATELLITE can be double as GPS and pin point a object and its location, otherwise Immersat could not be able to do the tracking, as Immersat 3 is NOT A GPS SATELLITE, IT IS A COMMMUNCAITON SATELLITE.

 

[antonius123]

My Point, Any Sat can be double as GPS satellite. You said There are ONLY 30 GPS NAVSTAR Satellite in orbit can do that.

My point, Immersat, NOT PART of Galileo, hence, not part of GPS satellite, can be used to calculate the location of MH-370, that proof, you do not need to be part of that Group to be able to pin point a location, that proof my point. Why China need Baidou? WHy Indonesia need NAVSTAR? How would I know? It's the same question why some people have a wife still want to have a girl friend, if you can answer me that, I can answer you your question.
befor that, it prove you are wrong, ANY SATELLITE can be double as GPS and pin point a object and its location, otherwise Immersat could not be able to do the tracking, as Immersat 3 is NOT A GPS SATELLITE, IT IS A COMMMUNCAITON SATELLITE.

LOls. You are only playing with your own assumption and never discern any citation given to you.

If you cant bring any citation to prove your claim, at least you need to use logic to discern citation given to you.

In fact I've given you citation showing that Inmarsat C version that provide GPS, that means not all Inmarsat provide GPS service.

Please discern carefully:
Inmarsat-C: effectively this is a "satellite telex" terminal with store-and-forward, polling etc. capabilities. Certain models of Inmarsat-C terminals are also approved for usage in the GMDSS system, equipped with GPS.

Clue: is other type of Inmarsat provide GPS too like C version?

Inmarsat D/D+/IsatM2M: Inmarsat's version of a pager, although much larger than terrestrial versions. Some units are equipped with GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inmarsat

Keyword: some => means: not all.

Conclusion:
1. Not all Inmarsat can provide GPS service, then:
2. Not all Satellites can provide GPS service

 

[gambit]

Thats logical fallacy.

According to your logic, F4 Phantom or even f86 should be more potent than F-22 because F4 / F86 are combat in Vietnam/korean war while F-22 not yet.

The logical fallacy here is YOURS. An aircraft is composed of only two elements: the aircraft and the pilot.

Whereas an entire military is composed of many things from doctrines to training to experience to hardware to people. The scale between the two is too great.

And nobody grand absolute certainty to china's war capabilities.

You have been all this time.

 

[jhungary]

LOls. You are only playing with your own assumption and never discern any citation given to you.

If you cant bring any citation to prove your claim, at least you need to use logic to discern citation given to you.

In fact I've given you citation showing that Inmarsat C version that provide GPS, that means not all Inmarsat provide GPS service.

Please discern carefully:
Inmarsat-C: effectively this is a "satellite telex" terminal with store-and-forward, polling etc. capabilities. Certain models of Inmarsat-C terminals are also approved for usage in the GMDSS system, equipped with GPS.

Clue: is other type of Inmarsat provide GPS too like C version?

Inmarsat D/D+/IsatM2M: Inmarsat's version of a pager, although much larger than terrestrial versions. Some units are equipped with GPS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inmarsat

Keyword: some => means: not all.

lol, dude, the article is talking about the terminal. Immersat-C is the terminal, not the satellite. It have nothing to do with equip with Satellite NAV, as I said, your iphone are equiped with Satellite NAV, does that mean your Iphone IS A GPS SATELLITE?

Do you even know what a GPS satellite do and how it work? Maybe it's time you brush up on your knowledge before you repsonse to people post here, first you said only the 30 satellite can provide GPS function, now you are saying SOME Communication satellite can do it too, how many flip flop you are going to do I wonder? I LAUGHT AT YOUR COMMENT

 

[antonius123]

The logical fallacy here is YOURS. An aircraft is composed of only two elements: the aircraft and the pilot.

Whereas an entire military is composed of many things from doctrines to training to experience to hardware to people. The scale between the two is too great.


You have been all this time.

LOLs. Again, another fallacy (if not idiocy) of yours.

By your logic, F86 can be used as F-22 simulator; pilots with F86 experience should be experience to pilot F-22 too

Once you have experience with F86 you will be automatically experienced with F-22, and you will never grow old

At first you claim US fighter is more potent because combat proven, now after fail you claim that pilot experience and korean war doctrine are the key elements of the US current fighter potents. What a buffoon

lol, dude, the article is talking about the terminal. Immersat-C is the terminal, not the satellite. It have nothing to do with equip with Satellite NAV, as I said, your iphone are equiped with Satellite NAV, does that mean your Iphone IS A GPS SATELLITE?

Dude. I suggest that you stop continue with your claims, unless you can bring any citation.

I've told you that iphone only has GPS receiver, not GPS satellite services. If you still insist on your claim, then please give citation to prove it.

Inmarsat is only terminal? not satellite? what a joke
Do you know what inmarsat is?

Do you even know what a GPS satellite do and how it work? Maybe it's time you brush up on your knowledge before you repsonse to people post here, first you said only the 30 satellite can provide GPS function, now you are saying SOME Communication satellite can do it too, how many flip flop you are going to do I wonder? I LAUGHT AT YOUR COMMENT

Do you?? Your statement above self explaining that you dont know about GPS at all.

Yes there are about 32 GPS sats. And GPS belong to US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

The other sats with GPS function like Inmarsat C/D doesnt make them GPS sats at all. And Inmarsat doesnt belong to GPS sats.

 

[jhungary]

The logical fallacy here is YOURS. An aircraft is composed of only two elements: the aircraft and the pilot.

Whereas an entire military is composed of many things from doctrines to training to experience to hardware to people. The scale between the two is too great.


You have been all this time.

You are talking to a dude who say this

So do you think China will let your 75 aegis move toward China's navy freely without being targeted with DF21D or numerous submarines under the sea?

Or maybe your 75 aegis can destroy whole 14 52D, but soon after that China will launch 75 DF-21D to your 75 Aegis..

Dude. I suggest that you stop continue with your claims, unless you can bring any citation.

I've told you that iphone only has GPS receiver, not GPS satellite services. If you still insist on your claim, then please give citation to prove it.

Oh, me without Citation? You are the one who claim this and that. I am providing a real world example that is well known to public, and I am the one not providing any citation? I now wonder whether or not Immarsat really did plot the path for MH-370?

IMMARSAT label all their SATELLITE with number, their Terminal in letters. THe passage you quote is for Immarsat C, which is a terminal, when did I say Immarsat only have terminal? You are seeing thing mate, better go see a head doctor.

http://www.inmarsat.com/about-us/our-satellites/

Do you?? Your statement above self explaining that you dont know about GPS at all.

Yes there are less there are about 32 GPS sats. And GPS belong to US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

The other sats with GPS function like Inmarsat C/D doesnt make them GPS sats at all.

Where did I say thse Comm sat have to function like GPS Sat? I said they can perform the fucntion of locating a target. EACH SATELLITE HAVE TO HAVE A TRANSPONDER to pin point its own location so the gorund terminal can provide uplink, the transponder is a 2 ways communication device, it can receive and it can transmit, meaning, they can pin point the ground location on any subject wanting to get a handshake, that is why they can detect your location.

You very much do not realise this, and keep talking to me about GPS satellite and Immarsat Terminal, which have nothing to do with my argument, while you have been fliping and flopping, first, you said only the 31 NAVSTAR SAT can do the GPS thing, then you said some other Satellite can do it too. Man......which is it?

 

[antonius123]

You are talking to a dude who say this




Oh, me without Citation? You are the one who claim this and that. I am providing a real world example that is well known to public, and I am the one not providing any citation? I now wonder whether or not Immarsat really did plot the path for MH-370?

IMMARSAT label all their SATELLITE with number, their Terminal in letters. THe passage you quote is for Immarsat C, which is a terminal, when did I say Immarsat only have terminal? You are seeing thing mate, better go see a head doctor.


Where did I say thse Comm sat have to function like GPS Sat? I said they can perform the fucntion of locating a target. EACH SATELLITE HAVE TO HAVE A TRRANSPONDER to pin point its own location so the gorund terminal can provide uplink, the transponder is a 2 ways communication device, it can receive and it can transmit, meaning, they can pin point the ground location on any subject wanting to get a handshake, that is why they can detect your location.

Where is your citation to prove your claim that all satelites could locate target??

Could you prove that Palapa Satelite (belong to Indonesia) could do locating a target too? (remember you claim there are thousands, or at least 1000 sats according to your latest claim).

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

LOLs. Handshaking with ground terminal is not the way to locate your enemy, do you think enemy target will do handshake with your sats? what a joke

You very much do not realise this, and keep talking to me about GPS satellite and Immarsat Terminal, which have nothing to do with my argument, while you have been fliping and flopping, first, you said only the 31 NAVSTAR SAt can do the GPS thing, then you said some other Satellite can do it too. Man.

Read again my statement above dude:

"Do you?? Your statement above self explaining that you dont know about GPS at all.
Yes there are about 32 GPS sats. And GPS belong to US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System
The other sats with GPS function like Inmarsat C/D doesnt make them GPS sats at all. And Inmarsat doesnt belong to GPS sats."
​

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/us-a...ls-in-s-china-sea.478877/page-17#post-9273762

You need to show me some proof, instead of simply opening your big mouth.

What else prove that you want from me, after so many given to you?

 

[jhungary]

Where is your citation to prove your claim that all satelites could locate target??

Could you prove that Palapa Satelite (belong to Indonesia) could do locating a target too? (remember you claim there are thousands, or at least 1000 sats according to your latest claim).

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

Did you actually read your source?

it said

This US$200 million satellite has more transponders than its predecessors (40 transponders, C2 only has 36). 40% of its transponders will be used by Indosat for their own purposes while the other 60% will be rented to others.

Suggested both Palapa and Palapa-D can use to pin point a locaiton

Read again my statement above dude:

"Do you?? Your statement above self explaining that you dont know about GPS at all.

Yes there are about 32 GPS sats. And GPS belong to US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

The other sats with GPS function like Inmarsat C/D doesnt make them GPS sats at all. And Inmarsat doesnt belong to GPS sats."​

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/us-a...ls-in-s-china-sea.478877/page-17#post-9273762

You do know this is supporting my point, not yours.

GPS is not a satellite, GPS is a function, for a satellite to track you and tell you where you are.

Any Satellite can perform this function, because the basic component is the same, that is the transponder.

A GPS receiver need to find 4 transponders from the satellite constellation to trianglate your position, the GPS work does not do in the satellite, the satellite itself was used as a reference point, the work is done and calculate in your receiver set. It can work if you retune to other satellite, as long as they are in the plane and can be located by your receiver. It can be interchangable to any satellite with any transponder.

Now, I am not telling you this is easy to do, but in the mIlitary, I have DONE IT MYSELF, i have retuned a MLB satellite to look at some military target, but i cannot tell you about it as this is classifiied, it also happened publicly when Indian military uses Commercial ISRO CARTOSAT to deliever strike to insurgent. Military using Civilian Satellite is NOT UNHEARD OF, we don't talk about it usually tho.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...osat-images-for-Army/articleshow/54596113.cms

Also, this article talking about how US Military uses commercial satellite bandwidth for their operation, one of the application in question is Blue Force Tracker, which is a GPS like tracking application which track all the blue force (US Military) unit location

http://www.c4isrnet.com/story/milit...015/05/12/sating-appetite-bandwidth/24372191/

Two key tactical network programs make "robust use" of commercial satellite bandwidth providers: the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T) and the Blue Force Tracker (BFT) efforts, said Paul Mehney, chief of strategic initiatives at Army Program Executive Office Command Control Communications in Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland. "All WIN-T programs were designed to use commercial bandwidth [Ku] as well as military bandwidth [Ka], based on availability," he said. "The BFT1 and BFT2 systems both use commercial L-band satcom."

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

Blue Force Tracking is a United States military term for a GPS-enabled system that provides military commanders and forces with location information about friendly (and despite its name, also hostile) military forces. In NATO military symbology, blue typically denotes friendly forces. The system provides a common picture of the location of friendly forces and therefore is referred to as the "Blue Force" tracker.

Read this, I have no time to wait for little kid like you brush up with modern technology

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/travel/gps.htm

What else prove that you want from me, after so many given to you?

Yeah, you give me nothing, but repeating your points and giving evidence that supporting my point.

 

[antonius123]

Did you actually read your source?

it said



Suggested both Palapa and Palapa-D can use to pin point a locaiton



You do know this is supporting my point, not yours.

GPS is not a satellite, GPS is a function, for a satellite to track you and tell you where you are.

Any Satellite can perform this function, because the basic component is the same, that is the transponder.

A GPS receiver need to find 4 transponders from the satellite constellation to trianglate your position, the GPS work does not do in the satellite, the satellite itself was used as a reference point, the work is done and calculate in your receiver set. It can work if you retune to other satellite, as long as they are in the plane and can be located by your receiver. It can be interchangable to any satellite with any transponder.

Now, I am not telling you this is easy to do, but in the mIlitary, I have DONE IT MYSELF, i have retuned a MLB satellite to look at some military target, but i cannot tell you about it as this is classifiied, it also happened publicly when Indian military uses Commercial ISRO CARTOSAT to deliever strike to insurgent. Military using Civilian Satellite is NOT UNHEARD OF, we don't talk about it usually tho.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...osat-images-for-Army/articleshow/54596113.cms

LOLs. In fact your explanation about how GPS work is not adequate and correct!

GPS work by calculating the distance by the time, speed of light and distance among 3 or 4 GPS satelites in constelation. Each GPS satellite transmits data that indicates its location and the current time. All GPS satellites synchronize operations so that these repeating signals are transmitted at the same instant. The signals, moving at the speed of light, arrive at a GPS receiver at slightly different times because some satellites are further away than others. The distance to the GPS satellites can be determined by estimating the amount of time it takes for their signals to reach the receiver. When the receiver estimates the distance to at least four GPS satellites, it can calculate its position in three dimensions.

And who said GPS is satelite? it is you who get missunderstanding here.

GPS is a system where GPS satelites is in it. I've mentioned about GPS receiver in iphone etc, so those are part of the system. From your explanation it shows that you dont understand how GPS work and just giving misleading explanation.

GPS doesnt use handshaking for locating target. It use their clock and involve many satelites (at least 3 sat) to work together for locating position.

Like I said I dont deny that non GPS satelites can locate certain target - with handshaking that you mention. But as I said: with handshaking you can only do the locating of friends who is willing to handshake with the that satelite.

In fact to guide weapons to hit enemy target, US military doesnt simply use GPS, they use a combination of INS, GPS and radar terrain mapping to achieve extremely high levels of accuracy such as that found in modern cruise missiles.

So your imagination that US military still can hit targets with guided weapons simply by help of telco satelites is simply a fanboy fantasy.

Also, this article talking about how US Military uses commercial satellite bandwidth for their operation, one of the application in question is Blue Force Tracker, which is a GPS like tracking application which track all the blue force (US Military) unit location

http://www.c4isrnet.com/story/milit...015/05/12/sating-appetite-bandwidth/24372191/



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




Read this, I have no time to wait for little kid like you brush up with modern technology

http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/travel/gps.htm



Yeah, you give me nothing, but repeating your points and giving evidence that supporting my point.

I know non GPS satelite can do locating friend location.

My simple question is: can non GPS satelite locate enemy position? and how?

How telco (non GPS) satellite allows the military to drop precision-targeted bombs on terrorists? or guide missile to hit the enemy?

How telco sat allows the pilot to find the fastest route out of the enemy territory?

 

[gambit]

LOLs. Again, another fallacy (if not idiocy) of yours.

By your logic, F86 can be used as F-22 simulator; pilots with F86 experience should be experience to pilot F-22 too

Once you have experience with F86 you will be automatically experienced with F-22, and you will never grow old

At first you claim US fighter is more potent because combat proven, now after fail you claim that pilot experience and korean war doctrine are the key elements of the US current fighter potents. What a buffoon

This is why it is so much fun making fun of you. You simply do not know you are in over your head. So how is that 'aviation studies' coming ?

Let us take this statement: China will militlarily defeat the US.

Not 'can', but 'will'.

Can anyone prove it ? No.

Can anyone disprove it ? Again, no.

But what we can do is put our faith in either direction. Either China WILL win. Or the US WILL win.

Can China win ? Of course. But what is possible does not equate to probable. And this is where your sucking up to China make you look stupid. You do not have the intelligence to perform the necessary analyses to come to a probable conclusion, the one that you are willing to put your faith into.

Am an Air Force guy, so am going to stick to what I know best: Air power.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/ten-propositions-for-modern-air-power.472753/

Where is the Chinese version of Colonel Phillip Meilinger ? None. Why ? Because in order for what Meillinger proposed, there must be a variety of contributing factors, such as institution, hardware, people, and combat experience.

Of all those four items, China's air forces is lacking in three, and is practically none existent in one: combat experience.

US air power constantly evolves, but anyone can say that of his country's air power, even Indonesia's air forces can say the same, although it would not mean much. China's air forces have not changed until the realization brought on by Desert Storm that made China realize that her armed forces were woefully behind the air forces of the Western powers. And even though China's air forces, fixed and rotary wings, have shiny new toys, doctrinally speaking, the PLAAF is essentially foundation-less and the naval air power for the PLAN is nonexistent.

Three prominent names in warfare: Sun Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and John Boyd.

China's PLA is behind the West the applications of the principles put forth by those three men. If there is a shooting fight between the US and China in the SCS, I can say with absolute faith and confidence that US air power, not just the US Air Force and the US Navy but the TOTALITY of US air power, will set China's air forces back to the Korean War status.

 

[antonius123]

This is why it is so much fun making fun of you. You simply do not know you are in over your head. So how is that 'aviation studies' coming ?

Let us take this statement: China will militlarily defeat the US.

Not 'can', but 'will'.

Can anyone prove it ? No.

Can anyone disprove it ? Again, no.

But what we can do is put our faith in either direction. Either China WILL win. Or the US WILL win.

Can China win ? Of course. But what is possible does not equate to probable. And this is where your sucking up to China make you look stupid. You do not have the intelligence to perform the necessary analyses to come to a probable conclusion, the one that you are willing to put your faith into.

Am an Air Force guy, so am going to stick to what I know best: Air power.

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/ten-propositions-for-modern-air-power.472753/

Where is the Chinese version of Colonel Phillip Meilinger ? None. Why ? Because in order for what Meillinger proposed, there must be a variety of contributing factors, such as institution, hardware, people, and combat experience.

Of all those four items, China's air forces is lacking in three, and is practically none existent in one: combat experience.

US air power constantly evolves, but anyone can say that of his country's air power, even Indonesia's air forces can say the same, although it would not mean much. China's air forces have not changed until the realization brought on by Desert Storm that made China realize that her armed forces were woefully behind the air forces of the Western powers. And even though China's air forces, fixed and rotary wings, have shiny new toys, doctrinally speaking, the PLAAF is essentially foundation-less and the naval air power for the PLAN is nonexistent.

Three prominent names in warfare: Sun Tzu, Carl von Clausewitz, and John Boyd.

China's PLA is behind the West the applications of the principles put forth by those three men. If there is a shooting fight between the US and China in the SCS, I can say with absolute faith and confidence that US air power, not just the US Air Force and the US Navy but the TOTALITY of US air power, will set China's air forces back to the Korean War status.

LOLs. You said: I simply do not know I am in over my head??

In fact it is you who simply do not know you are in over your head, that's why people like to make fun of you

Dude, tell me: when did I said China will definitely defeat US??

We are talking about : can US win against China if the war happen in China territory!

You can say that US has a lot of war experience, sophisticated weapon, experience generals, etc.

But the question is: why did US with lot of combat experience and sophisticated weapon lose against China in Korea?

If you can't defeat China in Korea, why you are so sure you will defeat China in China Mainland?

So you have to be aware that combat experience and more sophisticated weapon are not enough! If we are talking about war in enemy territory.

 

[jhungary]

LOLs. In fact your explanation about how GPS work is not adequate and correct!

GPS work by calculating the distance by the time, speed of light and distance among 3 or 4 GPS satelites in constelation. Each GPS satellite transmits data that indicates its location and the current time. All GPS satellites synchronize operations so that these repeating signals are transmitted at the same instant. The signals, moving at the speed of light, arrive at a GPS receiver at slightly different times because some satellites are further away than others. The distance to the GPS satellites can be determined by estimating the amount of time it takes for their signals to reach the receiver. When the receiver estimates the distance to at least four GPS satellites, it can calculate its position in three dimensions.

And who said GPS is satelite? it is you who get missunderstanding here.

Dude, you just explained in detail on what I said.

GPS is a system where GPS satelites is in it. I've mentioned about GPS receiver in iphone etc, so those are part of the system. From your explanation it shows that you dont understand how GPS work and just giving misleading explanation.

GPS doesnt use handshaking for locating target. It use their clock and involve many satelites (at least 3 sat) to work together for locating position.

I am not talking about GPS Satellite here, the whole point for your argument is that you said Non-GPS satellite cannot locate target. I am saying it can, Communication Satellite and Imagry Satellite both can used to located any target. I have gave you the example of Indian Army using CATROSAT, which is an IMAINT Satellite to help with Indian Army Strike, and US uses commercial communication satellite bandwidth to carry out the Blue Force tracker application, which is a GPS prgram.

While you keep telling me about how GPS saatellite work, do you know what are we discussing? We are talking about how non-GPS satellite does GPS work, not How GPS system works. I never said Comm Sat and Image Sat will REPLICATE what GPS Sat does, no, they don't. That doesn't mean they cannot do GPS SAT job, again, 2 examples. You fail to take in either one.

Like I said I dont deny that non GPS satelites can locate certain target - with handshaking that you mention. But as I said: with handshaking you can only do the locating of friends who is willing to handshake with the that satelite.

In fact to guide weapons to hit enemy target, US military doesnt simply use GPS, they use a combination of INS, GPS and radar terrain mapping to achieve extremely high levels of accuracy such as that found in modern cruise missiles.

So your imagination that US military still can hit targets with guided weapons simply by help of telco satelites is simply a fanboy fantasy.

A.) The indian Army example already show you even an Imagery SAT can help guide a precision strike. You don't do handshake in their communication, they don't shake, it's a one-way communication (WEll, they actually do, but that's maybe too hard for you to understand)

B. You said this

In fact to guide weapons to hit enemy target, US military doesnt simply use GPS, they use a combination of INS, GPS and radar terrain mapping to achieve extremely high levels of accuracy such as that found in modern cruise missiles.

is contrary to the first part of the next thing you said

So your imagination that US military still can hit targets with guided weapons simply by help of telco satelites is simply a fanboy fantasy.

And the second part of the last statement is proven wrong by my Indian Army Example. Unless you can come up with a counter argument on how Indian uses CATROSAT and strike insurgent, your are the fanboy, not me. As you have not explain anything, on any scale

Indian Army have PROVEN you can use Image Satellite to hit target, or you are claming Indian Army can do something the US Can't? OR that strike never exist? If you have counter argument to disprove it, let's hear it.

I know non GPS satelite can do locating friend location.

My simple question is: can non GPS satelite locate enemy position? and how?

How telco (non GPS) satellite allows the military to drop precision-targeted bombs on terrorists? or guide missile to hit the enemy?

How telco sat allows the pilot to find the fastest route out of the enemy territory?

How will your satellite know what is friend or foe? So, if that us a US Satellite, the Chinese Data will not show in your satellite? What kind of question is that?

A satellite is a satellite, it will do what you tell it to do, you ask it to fly over a certain part, it flew over a certain part, for the Satellite, it don't know if that is friend or foe area. COMSAT have ELINT device to allow communication possible between two subject. Whether or not that subject is in"enemy" territories. I can use a SAT Phone in Iraq when I was fighting over there, so if your satellite cannot pick up foe signal, then I must be lying because all SAT will not work in Enemy territories? You know the term passive detection? Have you ever wonder why people said you cannot hack or tap Satellite Phone?

have you ever get near a terminal console? Do you know how exactly a Satellite work? You are asking stupid question like this seems to reinforce the belief that you know jack shit about Satellite.

I am not going to explain to you unless you can give me a counter argument on 2 things

1.) How US Military uses Commercial Satellite Bandwwidth for GPS-enable Blue Force Tracker
2.) How the Indian use their Image Sat to carry out a strike.

Just because you said a lot of thing does not mean these thing are true. I cannot keep arguing with you in a circle

 

[antonius123]

Dude, you just explained in detail on what I said.



I am not talking about GPS Satellite here, the whole point for your argument is that you said Non-GPS satellite cannot locate target. I am saying it can, Communication Satellite and Imagry Satellite both can used to located any target. I have gave you the example of Indian Army using CATROSAT, which is an IMAINT Satellite to help with Indian Army Strike, and US uses commercial communication satellite bandwidth to carry out the Blue Force tracker application, which is a GPS prgram.

While you keep telling me about how GPS saatellite work, do you know what are we discussing? We are talking about how non-GPS satellite does GPS work, not How GPS system works. I never said Comm Sat and Image Sat will REPLICATE what GPS Sat does, no, they don't. That doesn't mean they cannot do GPS SAT job, again, 2 examples. You fail to take in either one.




A.) The indian Army example already show you even an Imagery SAT can help guide a precision strike. You don't do handshake in their communication, they don't shake, it's a one-way communication (WEll, they actually do, but that's maybe too hard for you to understand)

B. You said this



is contrary to the first part of the next thing you said

I never been contrary to my own argument.
My argument is clear: telco sats dont render the same as GPS sats for military purpose.

It is you who claim that Indian sats etc can render the same service as GPS does , so it is you who to prove it, which you never given any proven.

You'd better bring evidence to prove how Indian Image sats can help guide precision strike alone

In the previous page, I've given you evidence on how Anti Satt missile can devastate military mission by destroying 32 GPS sats + other military sats, and those totally are far less than 1000 sats as you claim.

And the second part of the last statement is proven wrong by my Indian Army Example. Unless you can come up with a counter argument on how Indian uses CATROSAT and strike insurgent, your are the fanboy, not me. As you have not explain anything, on any scale

Indian Army have PROVEN you can use Image Satellite to hit target, or you are claming Indian Army can do something the US Can't? OR that strike never exist? If you have counter argument to disprove it, let's hear it.

Yes, please bring evidence/article of your reference for all of us to analyze, whether it is true according to you claim.

How will your satellite know what is friend or foe? So, if that us a US Satellite, the Chinese Data will not show in your satellite? What kind of question is that?

A satellite is a satellite, it will do what you tell it to do, you ask it to fly over a certain part, it flew over a certain part, for the Satellite, it don't know if that is friend or foe area. COMSAT have ELINT device to allow communication possible between two subject. Whether or not that subject is in"enemy" territories. I can use a SAT Phone in Iraq when I was fighting over there, so if your satellite cannot pick up foe signal, then I must be lying because all SAT will not work in Enemy territories? You know the term passive detection? Have you ever wonder why people said you cannot hack or tap Satellite Phone?

have you ever get near a terminal console? Do you know how exactly a Satellite work? You are asking stupid question like this seems to reinforce the belief that you know jack shit about Satellite.

I am not saying that you cannot use satellite for communication in enemy territory.
I am asking: how telco sat will help locate and guide enemy target.

And who said telco sat cannot be hacked? Please read this:
http://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/39308/hacking/hack-satellite.html
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/its-surprisingly-simple-to-hack-a-satellite

Please stop piling up empty claim.

I am not going to explain to you unless you can give me a counter argument on 2 things

1.) How US Military uses Commercial Satellite Bandwwidth for GPS-enable Blue Force Tracker
2.) How the Indian use their Image Sat to carry out a strike.

Just because you said a lot of thing does not mean these thing are true. I cannot keep arguing with you in a circle

You cannot explain my challange/answer my question (on why countries who has telco sats still need US GPS, or why GPS sats still needed by US while US has hundreds of telco sats), but instead you are challenging me with question of your another claim (that US has sucessfully use comm sat for GPS service as good)?? thats already explain quality of your argument which is simply claim based instead of citation based.

And the way you are throwing claim then demand other to answer your another claim is a kind of joke

OK. Tell me which case that you refer abt US military use commercial sat only - for GPS for military purpose? give citation please.

 

[gambit]

Dude, tell me: when did I said China will definitely defeat US??

You continues to shows that reading comprehension problem.

When I said: Let us take this statement:

That does not mean I ascribed any following statement to anyone.

Do you know the meaning of the word 'ascribe' ? Just in case you do not, here it is...

verb

1. attribute something to (a cause).

So I never attributed this statement 'China will militarily defeat the US.' to you, as in you said it.

This is why it is always fun to make fun of you because you cannot keep track of the debate.

 

[hoangsa74]

China should fight Vietnam first to prove her combat experience like how America fought Iraq.

Then China can gain some real modern combat experience to face America.