The French Navy Stands Up to China

[gambit]

So what? For what?
I have no obligation to entertain you, and not interested too.

What this mean is that you are a fraud.

Let us take it this way...

Either you LIED about your 'aviation studies', which makes you a fraud.

Or you were a terrible student, which is the equivalent of lying anyway.

Or that ID's aviation education is really in the pits.

But no matter what, as far as everyone is concerned, you are not to be taken seriously. Not even your Chinese friends take you seriously.

 

[Viet]

Serious matter for Vietnam, not for us. We are doing brisk business with China.

Why not doing brisk business with Hanoi? Vietnam is communist too. The Chinese communists build HSR based on Siemens technology. Vietnam wants to do the same.

 

[gambit]

HGV

Here is what you do not understand...

The illustration is NOT to scale.

What is the distance from 'LAUNCH' to 'IMPACT'?

Is the missile programmed for a specific distance, or can it be variable?

If the distance is variable, then when will the warhead vehicle begins to make those maneuvers?

The claim that the vehicle can maneuver 'erratically' is absurd. In programming, if you have any experience in such, there is no such thing as truly random. Unpredictable, yes. But truly random? No. As the vehicle nears its target, its flight path must be less and less unpredictable. The vehicle's flight will be based upon proportional navigation guidance laws and if the vehicle is equipped with a sensor, maneuvers should not be outside of its sensor scan limits, else it would miss even a stationary target, let alone a moving one.

So for all we know, the up/down maneuver the illustration have will not be the abrupt attitude changes you tried to present but more likely gradual maneuvers.

 

[antonius123]

What this mean is that you are a fraud.

Let us take it this way...

Either you LIED about your 'aviation studies', which makes you a fraud.

Or you were a terrible student, which is the equivalent of lying anyway.

Or that ID's aviation education is really in the pits.

You are free to make any conclusion as you like according to your own delusion, and trust me: nobody care!

And the most important think is: you have been debunked further in this thread

But no matter what, as far as everyone is concerned, you are not to be taken seriously. Not even your Chinese friends take you seriously.

Frauding again?

Dont you see how they are laughing at you and @jhungary ?

ttps://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-french-navy-stands-up-to-china.564811/page-11#post-10592289
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-french-navy-stands-up-to-china.564811/page-12#post-10594516

They also see you are fraud

 

[gambit]

You are free to make any conclusion as you like according to your own delusion, and trust me: nobody care!

This is where you are wrong. People do care. When you tried to use your claimed experience to shut down others, and when it is clear you cannot answer a question that is DIRECTLY related to your claimed experience, you are exposed as a fraud. From that point on, no one believes in you. Your Chinese friends? They are using you. You praise China? That is all they care about. Who called on you to explain the technical issues when you cannot answer even a basic question of your claimed 'aviation studies'.

You are a fraud.

 

[rott]

You are free to make any conclusion as you like according to your own delusion, and trust me: nobody care!

And the most important think is: you have been debunked further in this thread




Frauding again?

Dont you see how they are laughing at you and @jhungary ?

ttps://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-french-navy-stands-up-to-china.564811/page-11#post-10592289
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/the-french-navy-stands-up-to-china.564811/page-12#post-10594516

They also see you are fraud

Bro, you're going to make him cry. He's already emotionally stressed out.

 

[gambit]

So what make you still doubt that maneuver at supersonic is unattainable?

The question is not the maneuver, dingbat.

The question is about the RATE OF ATTITUDE CHANGE of the maneuver, you 'aviation studies' fraud.

The SR-71 at Mach 3 at 80,000 ft altitude needs about 100 miles of radius turn. This is not about human endurance but about vehicle structurally integrity. Granted, the SR-71 is a reusable aircraft so its structure does have g-limits. But even if a missile is unmanned, its tubular structure, under maneuver, creates longitudinal vibration that WOULD affect accuracy in everything from flight heading to target impact. But let us put the missile aside for now.

A compact warhead to reduce longitudinal vibration and flexing.

What is its method of attitude change?

What is its RATE OF CHANGE? This is where your 'aviation studies' fraudulent claim about yourself is evident. In flight, everything can change direction and acceleration. But what matters more is RATE OF CHANGE. The higher the rate of attitude change, the quicker the maneuver.

The safe rate of attitude change for the SR-71 at Mach 3 is about 2 g max.

What is the METHOD of attitude change and RATE of change, you fraud?

Bro, you're going to make him cry. He's already emotionally stressed out.

Actually, it is your friend who is stressed out as he cannot answer a simple classroom question about his 'aviation studies' claim about himself. Either he lied, or is a terrible student, or ID's aviation edukashun is really bad.

"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.

Gary and I are veterans, that means we usually do not deal in speculations or 'ifs'. Only frauds like yourself focus on 'ifs'.

The reality is that the French Navy have more experience than the PLAN so that means as far as variables goes, experience is one variable that everyone love to have but few actually have it. So for now, bookies are going to to favor the French. The only way to find out for sure is a real fight and even the PLAN have to look at the odds.

 

[jhungary]

Hihihihiii .. cute gambit is back

So what? For what?
I have no obligation to entertain you, and not interested too.

I am not narcissus like you


Lying. Look back again in this thread, you were busted, no citation, and finally trying to abuse your rating to shut down debate with me LOL

Wow......you still don't get it, did you?

I stopped talking to you is because I don't want to ruin everyone days and keep on the war of words with you, that does not mean you shut me down. I simply acknowledge what other people think and wanted, but obliviously, you don't care

On another news, after you protested from the rating from Davos, you still have 1 negative rating remaining, that mean what he did is legit, and you did cross the line. That is why the rating stick.

Did Davos abused his rating? He had explained his decision, and he is not part of it anymore, moderator have make up their decision to keep one and strike one, which mean they agree on Davos which you deserve a rating.

You make accusation without source to back it up, and unlike us, you have not demonstrate any sort of professional knowledge and yet you claim yourself to be correct.

As I said before, and as @gambit said before, we argue with you not because you worth arguing, we do it for the silent reader out there who may want to know the truth, and for me, F you guys up once in a while is my entertainment.

You can think about yourself is all that, but in reality, you mean nothing to the forum, that's because status-wise, even I mean nothing to this forum, and my status is AND ALWAYS IS better than you.

 

[gambit]

Wrong.

Learn! I'm a expert in Science. LOL

Then I give you an F for Science.

Gary is correct. Satellites do not 'move'.

To be in 'orbit' is to be LOCKED into a predictable path around a body. That is not moving. You may call it 'moving' only in the sense that you may see the satellite at a different speed than you, depending on altitude, but the word 'orbit' have its own definition and context regarding relative perspectives. An 'orbit' is a locked in motion, to use the word 'motion' loosely.

To 'move' or relocate a satellite currently locked in an orbit is a different subject.

We do not say the Moon 'move', do we? No, we say the Moon is in an orbit around Earth. The word 'orbit' is a more technical descriptor for a behavior.

 

[jhungary]

This is where you are wrong. People do care. When you tried to use your claimed experience to shut down others, and when it is clear you cannot answer a question that is DIRECTLY related to your claimed experience, you are exposed as a fraud. From that point on, no one believes in you. Your Chinese friends? They are using you. You praise China? That is all they care about. Who called on you to explain the technical issues when you cannot answer even a basic question of your claimed 'aviation studies'.

You are a fraud.

LOL, his "Aviation Studies" is as much as I claim to be studying Accounting.

In one of the previous post, he even said missile can change course where lacking major flight surface, and ask me what law dictate that the fluid dynamic have to be balance to make flight, he didn't even know about Bernoulli's principle, which is basically the principle of man make flight.

I would not see his "aviation studies" worth much if he didn't know something even I, a private pilot, knows...….

Then I give you an F for Science.

Gary is correct. Satellites do not 'move'.

To be in 'orbit' is to be LOCKED into a predictable path around a body. That is not moving. You may call it 'moving' only in the sense that you may see the satellite at a different speed than you, depending on altitude, but the word 'orbit' have its own definition and context regarding relative perspectives. An 'orbit' is a locked in motion, to use the word 'motion' loosely.

To 'move' or relocate a satellite currently locked in an orbit is a different subject.

We do not say the Moon 'move', do we? No, we say the Moon is in an orbit around Earth. The word 'orbit' is a more technical descriptor for a behavior.

Your word reminded me of my days when those LM boffin come and give us a lecture on Satellite before we are qualify to operate them.

Satellite is like the moon, there is a reason why we only saw the moon approximately 10 hours a days, the same reason is why you can only use a satellite certain hours a day. Depending on orbit.

If we can "move" the satellite, things would have been A LOT EASIER. but well.

 

[gambit]

Satellite is like the moon, there is a reason why we only saw the moon approximately 10 hours a days, the same reason is why you can only use a satellite certain hours a day. Depending on orbit.

If we can "move" the satellite, things would have been A LOT EASIER. but well.

The man claimed to be an 'expert' in Science, and yet, he cannot distinguish the technical difference between 'orbit' and 'move'.

 

[jhungary]

The man claimed to be an 'expert' in Science, and yet, he cannot distinguish the technical difference between 'orbit' and 'move'.

lol, yeah, that's funny.....

I seems to know more even if I did not claim to be an "expert" in science. Oh well, they live in a world where they think they know more than me, even if I actually did use satellite frequently in TOC when I was in Afghan. Most of these people don't even know what is the latest interfacing (like MODIS or AVHRR) with satellite and they claim they know more than me....lol.

I should have forward these convo before they were being delete to the LM people, so that they can have a laugh. That is if I can dig up their contact detail..

 

[antonius123]

This is where you are wrong. People do care. When you tried to use your claimed experience to shut down others, and when it is clear you cannot answer a question that is DIRECTLY related to your claimed experience, you are exposed as a fraud.

Really? Then why only you who keep asking that?

From that point on, no one believes in you. Your Chinese friends? They are using you. You praise China? That is all they care about. Who called on you to explain the technical issues when you cannot answer even a basic question of your claimed 'aviation studies'.

You are a fraud.

Doesnt matter they use me or not, the fact I can see their argument is making sense, while yours and your friend jhungary most are nonsense. None of non chinese said my argument is nonsense, while many said you and jhungary were nonsense.

Evidence show that you failed to answer directly related to this topics, hence you are talking about yourself (fraudster).

Bro, you're going to make him cry. He's already emotionally stressed out.

Indeed! Seems he desperately try to safe his ruin face in this forum

The question is not the maneuver, dingbat.

The question is about the RATE OF ATTITUDE CHANGE of the maneuver, you 'aviation studies' fraud.

The SR-71 at Mach 3 at 80,000 ft altitude needs about 100 miles of radius turn. This is not about human endurance but about vehicle structurally integrity. Granted, the SR-71 is a reusable aircraft so its structure does have g-limits. But even if a missile is unmanned, its tubular structure, under maneuver, creates longitudinal vibration that WOULD affect accuracy in everything from flight heading to target impact. But let us put the missile aside for now.

A compact warhead to reduce longitudinal vibration and flexing.

What is its method of attitude change?

What is its RATE OF CHANGE? This is where your 'aviation studies' fraudulent claim about yourself is evident. In flight, everything can change direction and acceleration. But what matters more is RATE OF CHANGE. The higher the rate of attitude change, the quicker the maneuver.

The safe rate of attitude change for the SR-71 at Mach 3 is about 2 g max.

What is the METHOD of attitude change and RATE of change, you fraud?

Dont complicate yourself.

If it is true that no material can sustain High G turn as per your claim, then why Bvraam Meteor, AIM-120, PL-15, DF-21, Patriot, SM-6, and many others can?

Lets see who is fraud here

Actually, it is your friend who is stressed out as he cannot answer a simple classroom question about his 'aviation studies' claim about himself. Either he lied, or is a terrible student, or ID's aviation edukashun is really bad.

Just to remind you that you have been busted many times, means you are fraud.

But fine, I am waiting your answer for my question above. Lets see your capability..

Gary and I are veterans, that means we usually do not deal in speculations or 'ifs'. Only frauds like yourself focus on 'ifs'.

That show low IQ.

In many discipline and science, we use a lot of hypothetical situation; and in order to see how one independent variable affect dependent variable we often assume that remaining variables unchanged or the same. Have you ever heard "Ceteris Paribus"? that means "IF" everything else remain the same.

If you cant follow that, you were not eligible to further study in university.

This prove you both are fraudster

The reality is that the French Navy have more experience than the PLAN so that means as far as variables goes, experience is one variable that everyone love to have but few actually have it. So for now, bookies are going to to favor the French. The only way to find out for sure is a real fight and even the PLAN have to look at the odds.

Tell us how many modern naval combat experience that French Navy has; and where were they....?

 

[antonius123]

Wow......you still don't get it, did you?

I stopped talking to you is because I don't want to ruin everyone days and keep on the war of words with you, that does not mean you shut me down. I simply acknowledge what other people think and wanted, but obliviously, you don't care

Stop BS. The fact said I got many thanks from the audience while you get scorns

On another news, after you protested from the rating from Davos, you still have 1 negative rating remaining, that mean what he did is legit, and you did cross the line. That is why the rating stick.

Did Davos abused his rating? He had explained his decision, and he is not part of it anymore, moderator have make up their decision to keep one and strike one, which mean they agree on Davos which you deserve a rating.

Again logical fallacy from you. My other negative rating has nothing to do with Davos'.

Only your manipulative accusation.

You make accusation without source to back it up, and unlike us, you have not demonstrate any sort of professional knowledge and yet you claim yourself to be correct.

I give sensible arguments + citation, while you give nonsense without any citation.

The thanks I receive and scorns you receive says I am professional in giving argumentation esp in this field, while you are not in line with your title

As I said before, and as @gambit said before, we argue with you not because you worth arguing, we do it for the silent reader out there who may want to know the truth, and for me, F you guys up once in a while is my entertainment.

LOL. Unintelligent Liar

Your coming back to me and bothering with these petty arguments to me says the opposite: that you got shamed and feel so hurt by me and tried desperately to safe your ruined face

Btw I dont see your argument get any appreciation nor notice from the silent readers, leave alone support from them; that means they know you were making nonsense claims as usual.

You can think about yourself is all that, but in reality, you mean nothing to the forum, that's because status-wise, even I mean nothing to this forum, and my status is AND ALWAYS IS better than you.

Go ahead if your status still can entertain you amid your misery.

My advice is: stop abusing your status to push your fraud, not all people are stupid. The more you bother with petty talk the more you demonstrate unprofessionality. You should surrender your status to me

 

[jhungary]

Stop BS. The fact said I got many thanks from the audience while you get scorns

Well, you get many thanks, yet still less than me. And of course your get many thanks from your Chinese buddies, they are muddies, like you.

LMFAO, I got more Positive rating then all of your post in this thread put together...

Again logical fallacy from you. My other negative rating has nothing to do with Davos'.

Only your manipulative accusation.

Oh, I manipulate you? As Davos said

I was not quoting you in my first thread, YOU DECIDED to jump in, you started this thread does not mean every post concern you. But of course you have the right to jump in, but NOBODY HAS FORCED YOU to use that kind of language when you DO jump in.

I did not put a gun to your head to insult me, right?

I give sensible arguments + citation, while you give nonsense without any citation.

The thanks I receive and scorns you receive says I am professional in giving argumentation esp in this field, while you are not in line with your title

AS sensible as what I used to wipe my arse with after taking a dumb.

As I said, you failed to understand MANY FUNDALMENTAL concept and principal on something, and I am not saying information such as what kind of interface the people are using when they used Satellite, but item such as flight surface, even basic stuff such as bernoulli's principle...…

Lol, try saying the same thing OUTSIDE the Chinese and Far East Forum, and see if other people said "You're Professional"? The people agree with you SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU ARE AGIANST ME, not because your knowledge is legit. Try go against Chinese member and see how fast things go the other way?

LOL. Liar

Your coming back to me and bothering with your petty arguments to me says the opposite: that you got shamed and feel so hurt by me and tried desperately to safe your ruined face

Btw I dont see your argument get any appreciation nor notice from the silent readers, leave alone support from them; that means they know you were making nonsense claims as usual.

Well, I AM NOT the one that got left with a Negative rating. I don't feel shamed, in fact, I felt nothing and if I have more time, I will probably do more, but unlike you, first, I have work, second, I am working on something else. F you up is a bonus, not on my priority.

You WEREN'T that important to me to have try to F you up over and over.

Go ahead if your status still can entertain you amid your misery.

My advice is: stop abusing your status to push your fraud, not all people are stupid. The more you bother with petty talk the more you demonstrate unprofessionality. You should surrender your status to me

[/quote]

I don't see you coming out of this section and "Debunk" my other article, maybe, just maybe, first try to do that, then start worrying about my reputation. Let the WORLD hear your word, not just your buddies. LOL

Nobody outside Chinese forum know who you are, yet, I was called to many other section by member all over the world which I don't even know. Talk about reputation

LOL.