Penguin
ELITE MEMBER
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2009
- Messages
- 13,047
- Reaction score
- 56
30 post and you can't stop posting in this thread > QED.lol, at Penguin for saying I'm the noob that's getting baited?
You even failed to see I came to your rescue.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
30 post and you can't stop posting in this thread > QED.lol, at Penguin for saying I'm the noob that's getting baited?
French/Itallian Check list:
A: Does it have 8 galleys
B: Does it have 18 reverse gears
Last part is true but China has developed some innovative technology from last year. They are growing powerful
Such as? Look at the Chinese AEGIS-style ship and tell us what 'innovations' are there.Last part is true but China has developed some innovative technology from last year. They are growing powerful
Such as? Look at the Chinese AEGIS-style ship and tell us what 'innovations' are there.
The HQ-9 Naval SAM, the advance radar, the Type 730 CWIS, the stealth features, the list goes on................................
Please...NONE of those could count as an 'innovation'. They may be new to China, but not to the industry.
A Chinese ballistic missile is not an innovation. Other countries have done it. The DF-21D has YET to be proven to hit a moving target. And even so, the US explored that idea long ago and discarded it due to the difficulty of hitting that moving target. Heck, it is tough now dropping bombs on a moving ship. May be we discarded the development too early but that simply mean we already explored that idea to some developmental degree. So the DF-21D, assuming it works, is neither an innovation nor a first. Finally, having a deployed system does not mean it will work as intended. No one, with all the satellites watching for ballistic launches over the Pacific, has yet seen an actual 'over the water' test that actually hit a moving ship.How about the DF-21D Anti Ship Ballistic Missile, first of its kind. That's innovation. How about America.
A Chinese ballistic missile is not an innovation. Other countries have done it. The DF-21D has YET to be proven to hit a moving target. And even so, the US explored that idea long ago and discarded it due to the difficulty of hitting that moving target. Heck, it is tough now dropping bombs on a moving ship. May be we discarded the development too early but that simply mean we already explored that idea to some developmental degree. So the DF-21D, assuming it works, is neither an innovation nor a first. Finally, having a deployed system does not mean it will work as intended. No one, with all the satellites watching for ballistic launches over the Pacific, has yet seen an actual 'over the water' test that actually hit a moving ship.
Here it is:
F-22P Zulfiquar class frigate
F-22P Zulfiquar class frigate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Do not be ignorant? I was replying to the ChineseTiger's post because he was saying that
the Chinese military complex is above copying from other countries.
Yeah, and I'm very sure the inside can be different, but if they copied the outside I wouldn't
be too surprised if they copied some of the inside, it's only logical.
How is me posting examples of China's copied military hardware ignorant?
Seems like you got it completely backwards, cus you sound like the tard here.
lol, at Penguin for saying I'm the noob that's getting baited? All I did was make a post
about the Sejong destroyer cus I like the ship. I get some Chinese nut hugger just
bashing the ship and South Koreans, saying SK's only copy and can't make anything
on their own. To which I reply that the Chinese do a lot of copying themselves and
I'm getting baited and setting myself up? Yeah, OK, you sure your not the noob?