What's new

Chinese ASAT vs US ASAT

A fully loaded B-1 can provide laser guidance to its SDBs to take out a PLAAF airfield on the first pass. All without GPS.

And is this non-stealth B-1 going to loiter over Chinese airspace and designate a single target at a time with a targeting pod? :lol:

File:B-1B Lancer carrying the Sniper pod.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

800px-B-1B_Lancer_carrying_the_Sniper_pod.jpg
 
And is this non-stealth B-1 going to loiter over Chinese airspace and designate a single target at a time with a targeting pod?
Loiter? You are soooo limited in your thinking.

When our F-111s dropped their bombs, they did not 'loiter' as in circling over and round and over and round again and again, waiting for the bombs to find the laser reflection and the targets. It was one pass, one release, and the laser can designate multiple targets by rapidly changing the direction of its beam.

Have you ever seen those laser light shows..???

Laser Light Shows in Houston Texas by Stage Directions
Graphics can be animated moving a single beam at high speed to create an image. Text can also be created and animated in laser scripting and scrolled across a wall or screen.
A single beam can be used to create the appearance of a unitary image.

But noooooo...According to our Chinese members here...A single beam simply CANNOT be modulated and redirected so quickly as to guide multiple bombs. :lol:

Still waiting for gambit to back up his own claim of .1nm/hr. The burden of proof is on the person who made the claim.
Considering how making unsupported and even unsupportable claims from the Chinese crowds here...That is a hoot.

I don't have to disprove anything.
I did not asked you to. I advised you to use the American invention known as 'the Internet' and educate yourself using keyword search such as 'ring laser gyro ins drift rate'. The same technique you used to find your images that you posted but now too inconvenient because it would prove what I said. :lol:
 
The non-stealth B-1 will be shot down by SAMs before it gets close enough to drop the SDBs.

HQ-9 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Answer this question.

What is the range of SDB compared to the HQ-9?:lol:

Moreover, the use of a targeting pod with a laser designator plus SDB (glide bombs) will pretty much force the B-1 to fly at high altitudes, making it a perfect target for SAMs. Hopefully gambit will be piloting the B-1 personally. :lol:
 
Several things you got wrong......
In every meeting/discussion, no matter where, there comes a point where it is apparent to everyone attending that there is a person who just do not have the necessary mental and intellectual capacity -- simply put as too stupid -- to understand the subject. A meeting's moderator is usually perceptive and polite enough to steer the meeting to the next point to spare that person further embarrassment. I think we have reached that point with this guy and just leave him to his delusions.
 
I don't think you understand how INS drift works.

Inertial navigation system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

umm. you want to argue if INS require GPS to function or if INS are accurate without GPS?

I already said JDAM work WITHOUT GPS (Which was your original point) however, it will have less CEP when compare to INS using GPS system (5 meter vs 30).

You said JDAM rely on GPS to function, which is wrong, and now you migrate to JDAM's INS will not be accurate as JDAM INS function with GPS assist??

If you kindly recheck post #66 you will notice I said this

umm, no, without GPS, they will only slightly off target and not so accurate. INS guide those weapon, not GPS.

Source: http://www.defence.pk/forums/chinese-defence/267667-chinese-asat-vs-us-asat-5.html#ixzz2b5PDM4qc

Well.. apparently I am aware of INS drift when I said that

And it is not your original point by the way, your point was, destroy our 31 NAVSTAR satellite and our smart weapon will be useless. Which I already explained it is not true, either you move on or shut up about it.
 
There's one important thing I forgot to mention.

The destruction of GPS will neutralize both the B-2 and F-22's air-to-ground capability.

Neither aircraft have the F-35's EOTS.

Neither aircraft are able to carry the Sniper Pod. You wouldn't want to in the first place.

For example, can anyone find me a picture of the B-2 or F-22 dropping the Paveway like in this picture here? Bet you can't.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/F_35B_drops_GBU_12_for_first_time_01.jpg

F_35B_drops_GBU_12_for_first_time_01.jpg
 
His government wised up. The PLA know that the US is steadily moving away from the GPS dependency of the 20th century. Of course, they will interpret this to mean that I said we are somehow discarding GPS. Such is their simplistic intelligence. Anything beyond 2 factors of influence confounds them, let alone X degrees of freedom.

List of countries by student performance - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just use your American invention called "The Internet" and on your browser type your "respectful, free, magnificant, American made" search engine called google. Then learn the facts about the guys who can't think of "more then two factors". Then sit down and think about the Chinese people in USA who has a better career and more successful then yourself. Then ask yourself "if the guys who are more successful can't think beyond two factors, then how many factors can I think.". When you answer yourself sincerely you will probably want to commit suicide.
 
Their 'reasoning' works this way: If an American car have a 10 gal fuel tank and travels 200 miles, then all China have to do is build a car with 11 gal fuel tank to go a little bit further and voila, the Chinese car is technologically superior.

What if the Chinese car has the same fuel tank as the American car, but was just more fuel efficient?

Voila! Technological superiority!
 
There's one important thing I forgot to mention.

The destruction of GPS will neutralize both the B-2 and F-22's air-to-ground capability.

Neither aircraft have the F-35's EOTS.

Neither aircraft are able to carry the Sniper Pod. You wouldn't want to in the first place.

For example, can anyone find me a picture of the B-2 or F-22 dropping the Paveway like in this picture here? Bet you can't.

http://www.navair.navy.mil/img/uploads/F_35B_drops_GBU_12_for_first_time_01.jpg

F_35B_drops_GBU_12_for_first_time_01.jpg

Ever heard of IGS?
 
What if the Chinese car has the same fuel tank as the American car, but was just more fuel efficient?

Voila! Technological superiority!
Spare me that 'high Chinese IQ'...:lol:

The most important factor in fuel usage efficiency is burn and very close behind is the power to weight ratio.

- We want to burn as much of any X quantity of fuel as possible. That is why there is a process called 'atomization' where the fuel is turned into as fine a mist as possible.

- We want to minimize the weight that the energy from the burning of the fuel has to carry. One horse carrying/pulling 100 kilos will out pace, out distance, and out last another horse carrying/pulling 500 kilos.

So if the Chinese car changed to an aluminum frame and therefore is lighter overall, that still would NOT make the Chinese car more technologically superior because the American can easily change the steel frame to an aluminum version in one generation. Or the Americans can find ways to use less steel to reduce mass/weight and yet still have the same structural strength.

On the other hand, if the American car uses electronic fuel injection while the Chinese car uses carbureration, that will make the American car technologically superior because electronic fuel injection require much more sophisticated spark control, fuel dispense, finer fuel atomization which lead to less fuel required to produce the same power output which will equate to better fuel efficiency.

It is far easier to achieve the first than for the second. Reduction of steel for the frame does not introduce anything new to the car, but fuel injection require an electronic control unit, more wiring, higher fuel pressure, and a fuel pump while the carburetor does not require a fuel pump.

Returning to the ASAT issue, going from one orbital altitude to a higher one does not require a technological breakthrough, just a larger vehicle. The US went to the Moon and stationed satellites at several altitudes, so why should it be difficult for US to plant an ASAT satellite anywhere? In the simple Chinese mind, if China does it and no one else does it, it means no one else can. :lol:
 
Spare me that 'high Chinese IQ'...:lol:

The most important factor in fuel usage efficiency is burn and very close behind is the power to weight ratio.

- We want to burn as much of any X quantity of fuel as possible. That is why there is a process called 'atomization' where the fuel is turned into as fine a mist as possible.

- We want to minimize the weight that the energy from the burning of the fuel has to carry. One horse carrying/pulling 100 kilos will out pace, out distance, and out last another horse carrying/pulling 500 kilos.

So if the Chinese car changed to an aluminum frame and therefore is lighter overall, that still would NOT make the Chinese car more technologically superior because the American can easily change the steel frame to an aluminum version in one generation. Or the Americans can find ways to use less steel to reduce mass/weight and yet still have the same structural strength.

On the other hand, if the American car uses electronic fuel injection while the Chinese car uses carbureration, that will make the American car technologically superior because electronic fuel injection require much more sophisticated spark control, fuel dispense, finer fuel atomization which lead to less fuel required to produce the same power output which will equate to better fuel efficiency.

It is far easier to achieve the first than for the second. Reduction of steel for the frame does not introduce anything new to the car, but fuel injection require an electronic control unit, more wiring, higher fuel pressure, and a fuel pump while the carburetor does not require a fuel pump.

Returning to the ASAT issue, going from one orbital altitude to a higher one does not require a technological breakthrough, just a larger vehicle. The US went to the Moon and stationed satellites at several altitudes, so why should it be difficult for US to plant an ASAT satellite anywhere? In the simple Chinese mind, if China does it and no one else does it, it means no one else can. :lol:

In ASAT technology, the US is not even in our league.
 
Spare me that 'high Chinese IQ'...:lol:

The most important factor in fuel usage efficiency is burn and very close behind is the power to weight ratio.

- We want to burn as much of any X quantity of fuel as possible. That is why there is a process called 'atomization' where the fuel is turned into as fine a mist as possible.

- We want to minimize the weight that the energy from the burning of the fuel has to carry. One horse carrying/pulling 100 kilos will out pace, out distance, and out last another horse carrying/pulling 500 kilos.

So if the Chinese car changed to an aluminum frame and therefore is lighter overall, that still would NOT make the Chinese car more technologically superior because the American can easily change the steel frame to an aluminum version in one generation. Or the Americans can find ways to use less steel to reduce mass/weight and yet still have the same structural strength.

On the other hand, if the American car uses electronic fuel injection while the Chinese car uses carbureration, that will make the American car technologically superior because electronic fuel injection require much more sophisticated spark control, fuel dispense, finer fuel atomization which lead to less fuel required to produce the same power output which will equate to better fuel efficiency.

It is far easier to achieve the first than for the second. Reduction of steel for the frame does not introduce anything new to the car, but fuel injection require an electronic control unit, more wiring, higher fuel pressure, and a fuel pump while the carburetor does not require a fuel pump.

Returning to the ASAT issue, going from one orbital altitude to a higher one does not require a technological breakthrough, just a larger vehicle. The US went to the Moon and stationed satellites at several altitudes, so why should it be difficult for US to plant an ASAT satellite anywhere? In the simple Chinese mind, if China does it and no one else does it, it means no one else can. :lol:
TL;DR

Thanks for typing out that long paragraph tho~
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom