The First Chinese Aircraft Carrier

[CardSharp]

Yeah, the crossing fee is even more expensive than the ship hull itself.

ÍßÁ¼¸ñ¹é¹úÀú³Ì£ºÍ¾¾Èý¹úÔøÔâÍÁ¶úÆä×èÀ¹_ÍøÒ×ÐÂÎÅÖÐÐÄ

I also don't understand why they didn't call the Carrier, the lucky lady, lucky dices, as a tribute to her cover as made its way to china.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

Why would the Indians lie about being offered it first? A prestig thing?

Maybe he didn't know much about the history of Varyag, and i don't think he was deliberately spreading the false information.

 

[ChineseTiger1986]

I also don't understand why they didn't call the Carrier, the lucky lady, lucky dices, as a tribute to her cover as made its way to china.

First, they didn't want to catch too much attention.

If they didn't do in that way, then US could find many excuses to jeopardize this deal.

Under the press from US, the Ukrainian govt already removed the engine and blew off all the components, even the ship structure was badly damaged. Now it is a miracle for us to be able to fix it.

 

[Akasa]

Really? But keep this in mind, because it will bite you...

Good. Chew away.

Yours.

Physics seem to consider otherwise.

Really? Any credible third party source for that? There are more serious complexities involved but providing a source for your claim will suffice for now.

The apogee for a medium range missile like the DF-21 is approximately 90 miles (based on apogees of respective Indian and Pakistani missiles). The terminal stage starts much lower than the apogee, but for the sake of this argument it'll suffice for now. The terminal velocity of the ballistic missile is approximately Mach 10. With that, the acceleration (reentry speed is already hypersonic for most missiles) and the altitude gives the ballistic missile a bit over 40 seconds to strike the target.

Here's a link:
http://www.plrc.org/docs/010824A.pdf

The link above says the terminal phase is about 30 seconds.

It seems you haven't been keeping up in economic news for the past 40 years......And advances in interception laws. News for you, kid, what you just said also applies to the warhead, especially when a moving target, like a ship, is involved. You are treading into an area -- guidance, navigation, and control laws -- you know nothing about.

Use your knowledge and explanations to disprove what I said earlier. Don't pull this "I'm more experienced" crap on me.

The physics behind free falling objects hasn't changed for the last century, mind you.

 

[Crypto]

Does anyone have any information on just how many J-15s are to be carried on Varag? I think 30-36 would be a good number.

50 aircrafts plus helis

 

[gambit]

Physics seem to consider otherwise.

Physics matter very little when it comes to 'guidance', 'navigation', and 'control systems'. The issue here is the proper context of all of them.

The apogee for a medium range missile like the DF-21 is approximately 90 miles (based on apogees of respective Indian and Pakistani missiles). The terminal stage starts much lower than the apogee, but for the sake of this argument it'll suffice for now. The terminal velocity of the ballistic missile is approximately Mach 10. With that, the acceleration (reentry speed is already hypersonic for most missiles) and the altitude gives the ballistic missile a bit over 40 seconds to strike the target.

Here's a link:
http://www.plrc.org/docs/010824A.pdf

The link above says the terminal phase is about 30 seconds.

Hey, buddy...Read your own source. I asked for a credible third party source that explains how could a descending warhead maneuver and to what extent within a certain time frame. What you brought on was NOT a technical source but essentially a rant against defense budgeting.

There are two methods to maneuver a moving body in a medium such as air (or water): reaction thrust or aerodynamic (or hydrodynamic) force exploitation. The former allude to rocketry. The latter to flight control surfaces. Which method is best and when? The higher the body's velocity through this medium the greater the force require to change its attitude, or slow it down, or redirect its forward motion. So at double digit Mach, the rocket thrust mechanism would be how large? Or how robust must the flight control surfaces be? That is what the readers are looking for.

Use your knowledge and explanations to disprove what I said earlier. Don't pull this "I'm more experienced" crap on me.

The physics behind free falling objects hasn't changed for the last century, mind you.

Absolutely I can. I have always support my arguments with credible third party sources and advise the readers to use keyword searches to verify what I said. More so than we can say for you Chinese boys. To date, not one of you have proved what I said is wrong. If anything, it is awfully hard, if not outright impossible to prove what I said is wrong when I present evidences that are applicable to everyone, including American stuff. I could not do that if I have no relevant experience.

Here is a clue for you...

Guidance is not the same as navigation. Control system is the third leg but usually if a system has navigation, it is given that the moving body has a control system so generally we who have relevant experience in this matter confine the discussion to just guidance and navigation. After all, without a control system, it is useless to install a navigation system.

Guidance is when you know the exact destination where you are going and just want to maintain a steady course. Guidance has no external correlative inputs.

Navigation is much much much more complex.

That will be all for now.