Do you need 1:1 scale target dummies to test weapons or is this some weird asiatic chest thump that no human can understand. Chinks have built mock ups of American ships in a desert and they're bombing them.

Knowing the Chinese military tends to just blatantly copy what the US does Id say its more of a political move. Looks more implessive to bomb a mockup than bomb a smaller target.

>>63921952 (OP)
Implessive posturing, be vely aflaid muttman (nooooo dont talk about my jap grandaddy)

This story is like years old. Anyway,
>want to show how implessive your “guided” bombs are
>make a huge target so it’s really easy to hit
>put it on rails so you know exactly where it will go
>also it’s slow as fuck
Wow, much implessive, very not retarded behavior.
Fucking slopes. You want to impress me? Add remote control driving to one of your shitty self immolating electric cars and serpentine it through the desert with the pedal on the floor and hit that with a bomb. Then we’ll know you have a decent fucking bomb.

>>63921952 (OP)
>want to test your new anti-ship missiles/bombs on a military ship
>don't have any legacy ships
>even if you did, face saving culture forbids you from sinking said legacy ships
>can't sink ships in the Taiwanese strait without causing problems for navigation, potentially
>can't test out on the blue water without literally building a ship that is sea worthy, and doing so would leave you completely open to evil Americans studying everything you do
>build mockups in a desert to get around all these problems

It makes a certain kind of sense if you consider the autism.

>does your target that you want to hit need to be somewhat similar in appearance to the real thing
yes, yes it does
the fact that it moves shows they're serious about hitting moving targets at long range with ballistic missiles queued up to space isr

>>63921952 (OP)
>Do you need 1:1 scale target dummies to test weapons
we routinely test weapons on old hulls and mockup buildings, why would you think they wouldn't do the same for their anti ship missiles?

>>63922037
>serious about hitting moving targets
i'll take them serious when they start getting serious about hitting targets that don't move in a straight line literally on rails.

>>63921952 (OP)
See the chinks saw all the "but is it combat tested?" posts on /k/ and wanted to test their weapons in the most realistic way to make sure they REALLY work.

>>63922292
>i'll take them serious when they start getting serious about hitting targets that don't move in a straight line literally on rails.

You obviously know nothing about guidance systems. The guidance system has no concept of anything moving in a straight line or not, thus it doesn't change the guiding challenge whatsoever.

>>63922031
cool now imagine its just like 10 shipping containers
there i saved you 10 billion chinkeroo dollars

The USA uses old ships.
I see no problem with it, China has a lot of spare desert.

>>63924804
Ain't their desert eating up their farms or someshit? I keep hearing how each of their territories are somehow being hit with their own flavor of catastrophic sign that the Mandate of Heaven has been lost.

>>63924781
Are you trying to tell me that maneuvering targets aren't any harder to hit than one moving in a straight line at a constant speed?
Is that really what you're trying to say?

>>63924781
>You obviously know nothing about guidance systems. The guidance system has no concept of anything moving in a straight line or not, thus it doesn't change the guiding challenge whatsoever.
Yeah, but it simplifies the math needed to intercept a target when your target only has one degree of freedom you have to account for. Even then, it's much easier as you set a constant speed of the target, and can even program the known speed into the intercept algorithm. Seems YOU don't actually know.as much as you think you do about missile guidance.

they've got a history of this kind of thing

>>63921952 (OP)
We just blow up our old ships, we know our missiles work.

>>63924815
>desertification
5000 years ago the american southwest was lush rolling plains, shit happens.

>>63921952 (OP)
Testing of electro-optical terminal guidance. Outside of nukes all munitions get tested. The closer to reality the better the result.

>>63924820
>Are you trying to tell me that maneuvering targets aren't any harder to hit than one moving in a straight line at a constant speed?
>Is that really what you're trying to say?

Yes, and I say that as someone who has designed guidance systems.
For you as a human it seems simpler because you know the target can only move in a straight line.
But the guidance system has no knowledge, yet alone a concept of it.
It's like telling a dog that relativity exists and thinking that will help the dog design his GPS system.
The dog has no concept of what you're on about.

>>63924826
>Yeah, but it simplifies the math needed to intercept a target when your target only has one degree of freedom you have to account for.

Only if the entire design of the guidance system tries to exploit the fact that the target can only move in a straight line, which it obviously doesn't since it's supposed to be able to hit any moving target.
Also the "simplified math" is not really the difficult part of such guidance systems.
The difficult parts is sensor signal to noise and correct interpretation of the sensor data.

The way this works is that the sensor gives you data, and you run detection algorithms over it to try to figure out where the target is.
Then you check this vs the real position.
Now you change the position, and see if the sensor can track that change.

You move the target 100m eastwards, and the guidance system says it's 99.5m eastwards and 0.5m southwards.
It didn't actually fucking move 0.5m south since your rail tracks are perfectly straight and aligned east-west, but the sensor doesn't know, the digital signal processor doesn't know, and the code running on your microcontroller also doesn't fucking know.

>Even then, it's much easier as you set a constant speed of the target, and can even program the known speed into the intercept algorithm.

THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE IS NOT TO CHEAT, BUT TO TEST YOU RETARDED IDIOT.

>>63924829
that one at least makes some sense, but this one is just silly

>>63924995
Any more fun insights into guidance system design?

>>63924995
>negating the Z axis on a curved surface

>>63921952 (OP)
Better question, is there any merit to a massive, land based, rail mounted aircraft carrier if you have a fuck load of desert to hide it in?

>>63925129
>radies and gentremen, we got him...

>>63924820
Google proportional navigation.

>>63924781
>wanted to test their weapons in the most realistic way to make sure they REALLY work
>By making a slow ass mockup dragging in a straight line at 5mph
Implessive

>>63926125
Doesn't work when your cope missile can only maneuver in the terminal phase.

>>63924995
>Yes, and I say that as someone who has designed guidance systems.
We've got a certified Nintendo engineer in here boys.

>>63924995
>THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE IS NOT TO CHEAT, BUT TO TEST YOU RETARDED IDIOT.
What a western minded, sinophobic insinuation.

>>63924995
I was thinking less about the guidance software and more about the actual physical missile having to constantly maneuver/course correct to hit a target moving in an unpredictable manner.

>>63926157
It was for a toy hobby project I did for fun, not for fucking Raytheon.
It's not as difficult as you think.
Ofc you have absolutely no idea how hard/easy anything is since you're dumb and have never done anything interesting in your life ever so you do not know.

>>63926236
>I was thinking less about the guidance software and more about the actual physical missile having to constantly maneuver/course correct to hit a target moving in an unpredictable manner.

From the viewpoint of a missile the target is moving in slow-motion with only the tiniest correction required, at the absolute bottom end of the maneuverability requirements.

Modern missiles can pull triple digit Gs, to hit a CV you need way less than 1G.
Literally orders of magnitudes below capabilities.
This is how little a clue you fucking mouthbreathers have about literally everything.

>>63926303
Implessive, I am now demoralized and will bow and surrender my asian girlfriend to the chinese overlords after this impeccable testing against an effectively non moving target.

>>63924995
>which it obviously doesn't since it's supposed to be able to hit any moving target.
Proof? Your fanfic headcannon you pulled from your blown out asshole isn't proof.

>>63926303
>i can get a sensor return good enough to hit a target moving in a straight line at a low speed where any sort of noise and jitter doesn't matter because it only has to aim at a constant point
>this is at all comparable to having a solid enough return to be able to hit a target that's constantly changing it's interception point

>>63926324
Not him but sensor noise aside, predicting the trajectory of a ship is trivial. You just need to calculate the first and second order differentials in the x and y axis (you don't even need a z axis in this case). It could randomly change speed but it's a 250,000 square feet target, moving at best at 35mph. It's not small or fast.

>>63926349
Predicting is only trivial if it isn't changing, which is the entire point. A carrier that's under fire from AShMs is going to be drifting like it's down town Tokyo, and as such even small changes are going to be more then enough make the missile miss. If you're moving in a straight line at a constant speed, like say on a railway, error from the sensors will average out over time and you'll have good estimate of where the target will be. If the ship is constantly maneuvering, you have to be substantially more accurate with your measurements because the point of interception is going to be different then it was a couple of seconds ago. 250,000 square feet has a pretty small MoA from altitude.

>35 mph top speed
No one believes, especially after we had one of the carriers sprint into the Middle East... I think it was after Oct 7th to prevent any further chimping out by Iran?

>>63926349
Again, >>63926148

>>63926324
>I am mentally retarded
We know. We know.

>>63926378
There are missiles which hit other missiles going several THOUSAND mph pulling dozens of Gs.
A carrier is essentially a static target with no movement capabilities WHATSOEVER in comparison, a fucking ROUNDING ERROR nobody gives a shit about it.
For an anti-ship missile, it makes absolutely no difference if a carrier is actually moving or not.

This is like asking you if you could tell if a semitruck drove past you after you already noticed that a toy R/C car drove past you.

>>63921952 (OP)

Why not just buy one of the decommissioned Kitty Hawks or the Enterprise off the scrap merchants and just bomb the shit out of it to see what it takes to sink them?

>>63926537
You're so fucking retarded. The missile may be moving at a billion miles an hour, but it also is starting from a billion miles away. A carrier moving 35 MPH, well below whatever the actual top speed of a modern USN carrier actually is, moves it's entire length in 20 seconds. A turn of one degree at a minute before impact moves it substantially out of the impact zone. The USN doesn't do evasive maneuvers for giggles, because they make flight ops impossible during which means the carrier is no longer doing it's job. They do them because they dramatically expand the zone of potential space that the carrier will be in when the missile arrives, which makes it harder for the missile to simply point itself at where the carrier will be and then not have to maneuver or track, and the fact the missile is fucking hauling ass makes it harder for it to make last second micro corrections as the possibility space the carrier can occupy narrows with time.

>>63926540
A rusty kittihawk is still decades nlmore advanced than anything chinks can cobble up. They'll jump to refurb it like they did with kuznetsov 100%.

>>63926534
Ching Chong ping pong

>>63926537
Again, >>63926148

>>63925129
>>63924829
Why are the Taiwanese so much less autistic and weird than mainlanders?

>>63921952 (OP)
The more realistic the test, the better

>>63926578
They didn't suffer decades of communism

>we just sunk old ships
sure chang... building 1:1 ratio of adversaries carriers is equivalent sinking old ships. sure sure

>>63922292
the point of it moving is to make sure your seeker head can get a lock and guide to target. it won't matter what direction it goes in or even if it does a hard turn, because that's not an issue (it's simple control surfaces moving). this is also why you want it to be around the same size and composition to the real thing, so you can prove your seeker head works. it'll be active radar on terminal.

the math behind getting it in the right spot for the seeker's fov to get a lock based on isr is rather easy, but you still need to test it all out too.

the more difficult aspect is target discrimination when there's nearby escorts, but if you test enough, you can reduce the amount of time your seeker is active so that it mostly just sees the carrier.

>>63926751
Again, >>63926148

>>63926303
Only some modern missiles can hit 100G, and they sacrifice a lot for it.
Also to dodge defensive fire more G's is generally better, even if your point about maneuver of ships being minimal is true.

>>63925129
I can respect this level of 'tism. I'd be worried if they start building replica a Stalingrad and a copy of the ISS underwater.

>>63924815
That's true everywhere. I wouldn't worry about it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nyMvZA5Wpn0

>>63926578
There's just a lot less of them to be weird online.

>>63922038
Yeah but this is like making a 1:1 scale model of the Moskva to test LRASMs on.

>>63926983
not every country has spare wrecks to use
we do the same pony show for political leaders and other people who hold purse strings
have to oooh and awe them with a show before they sign away billions

those euro weapon exhibitions? they're not themed like laser dance clubs with models for no reason anon

>>63924781
>muh guidance
it doesn't even get to that point, it can't communicate because of a plasma field and it can't see and track because of a plasma field.
there's no killchain for chink hypermeme missiles onto a maneuvering target at sea

>>63921952 (OP)
>Do you need 1:1 scale target dummies
rehearsals are basic

>>63921952 (OP)
>Need to be capable of reliably hitting target resembling the dimensions of what you're expecting to fire at in a war
It could be a constructed prop or even some painted lines on the ground. It's the absolute minimum that needs to be done.
Anyone claiming this is "the end of the carrier" is a fool. It's just proving the CEP to be reasonable at the end of the kill chain. Not that the chain will carry through unbroken.

I'm imagining the insectoid screeching that would arise if the US build a three gorges replica in the desert and bombed it.

>>63928422
>US build a three gorges replica in the desert and bombed it
imagine the chinkspam of cope on /k/

>>63925129
Eh, I for one appreciate the autism.
Think of the absolutely autistic theme parks you could turn theses things into.
>50 bucks to take out Bin Laden with nerf guns
>shoot a moving ship with a 120 tank gun in the fucking desert
I love it.

>>63926349
>predicting the trajectory of a ship is trivial
the entire point of evasive maneuvers is that the trajectory is constantly changing
you can predict all you want but it's going to be different moment to moment

>>63924815
>Ain't their desert eating up their farms or someshit?
nah they are genociding deserts now. Get with the time grandpa.
Xi IS the mandate of heaven as will his successor.

>>63926540
this kind of retarded thinking is why the US is shitting bricks with the rare earth ban kek

>>63921952 (OP)
yes, I'm sure they have their own equivalent of TRL levels that require realistic field tests

>>63928826
@jinjingbingbong
implessive

>>63928819
>add vegetation in a desert region
>increase the water consumption of your entire country because of it
>turn other regions at risk of becoming a desert because of it
yeah... "mandate of heaven", i'm not sure about that one

>>63928826
chinkshill, you should stay in your dedicated seethe thread.

>>63926378
>>63926399
>>63928795
I think I should clarify the math: a ship doing a hard turn, or as you call it "drifting", has an EXTREMELY predictable path. This is because the change in velocity in both axis is fixed, it's simply a constant in the second order differential. If you do an S turn, yes there is some. But it is very easy to recalculate an interception point. The issue arises if the missile cannot change its own trajectory to collide. A missile obviously has far more ability to change its trajectory than a ship.

Intuitively it is quite obvious. A cheetah can obviously intercept an elephant. A motorcycle can obviously intercept a truck.

>>63929668
>but it is very easy to recalculate an interception point

Ah, yes. That's why so many non-US munitions have CEPs that are within a few feet against even a stationary target. Oh, wait, they don't? Just saying it's easy to do doesn't make it happen? Gee willikers, it's almost like terminal maneuvering and target acquisition are rather difficult.

>>63929498
Supposedly they're using cloud seeding. But yeah that region still kind of looks like Afghanistan.

>>63929668
>Intuitively it is quite obvious. A cheetah can obviously intercept an elephant. A motorcycle can obviously intercept a truck.
I feel like this kind of mindset is a surefire way to guarantee whatever it is you're designing doesn't work as intended. Plan for the worst case scenario instead of treating the expected outcome as an inevitability.

>>63929803
People in this thread are being purposefully obtuse.
From the software fucking up, to something interfering with the sensor, or some kind of electrical fault making the servo commands ineffective, there's a million ways a munition can be off target or even become a dud if it hits.
GPS guided munitions are communicating with an artificial satellite outside of Earth. Laser guided munitions are looking for the laser spot and there's always some kind of reflection, jitteriness, etc. involved. The CEP being a few feet isn't a prediction error but simply the fact that error is a fact of life and you can't eliminate it completely.
On a moving target the predicted impact point will have an error. On a maneuvering target the error does not accumulate between predictions. A maneuvering target makes itself hard to hit by kinetically defeating the munition or getting outside of gimbal limits. Not by zigging when the munition thinks you'll zag.

>>63929874
>Plan for the worst case scenario
The problem is that you think "I'll hit the brakes and he'll fly right by" is the worst case scenario.
It isn't.

>>63929891
It's obviously only one of a myriad of defensive measures that all serve to reduce the chances of scoring a good hit as much as possible.

Anyway, to get back to the original argument. If it actually is such a non-factor, then you could easily demonstrate as much by making your big dumb rail-borne target do some hard turns.

>>63929912
I think something's lost in translation here.
Doing the multi-track drifting is more effective in something like the Red Sea scenario, where Houthis will not have mid course corrections so the missile is lobbed at an approximate location and the seeker will turn on during terminal maneuvers. If you quickly swing the ship around while the missile is in transit you can potentially get outside of seeker gimbal limits and cause a miss, only having to sacrifice an unsecured F/A-18.
Building a thigh curve into the rail would accomplish nothing, because the ship would be turning while the missile still has the nose cone pointed up and is flying blind.
The real challenge is blasting EW at the missile and pumping chaff. Not maneuvering.

>>63928422
>>63928440
Probably no more than the mutt cope and seethe in this thread.

>>63930201
>Doing the multi-track drifting is more effective in something like the Red Sea scenario, where Houthis will not have mid course corrections so the missile is lobbed at an approximate location and the seeker will turn on during terminal maneuvers.
Chink missiles work exactly the same way btw.

>>63930429
Stop hitting yourself while projecting, chinkspammer.

>>63930429
Reminder that chinkmutts are the most disgusting genetic cesspool of a "race" there is alongside jeets and are literally the rape byproduct of hundreds of peoples that ravaged their land for millenia

>>63928422
I expect several thousand count ritual suicide at the very least. Dozen thousands if you paint Taiwan numba one on it in bright paint as well.

>>63929473
>>63929516
Wow look. More coping mutts. Carriers are closer to stationary targets than something maneuverable. But ya'll /k/ whyte dogs aren't ready for that trvke.

unless they match armor thickness and steel composition it's all just pointless. realistically speaking you only need the outline of the ship and the superstructure.

>>63930481
2 more weeks and chyna will retake Taiwan by sinking all stationary carriers. Amerikkka is finished. The age of mutt has begun.

>>63929841
you don't even know what Afghanistan looks like LMAO.
>>63929498
I mean.
Picrel kek

>>63930596
China already has Taiwan province. It is just a bait for the US to commit.
Even Hong Kong has more international presentation than Chinese Tapei LMAO. They can participate in the Olympics with the their own flag. Xi has always been merciful. Praise be.

>>63930932
>We don't actually need it
It must be a crime to post cope this pathetic.

>>63929803
>>63929874
Sensors is a separate issue. I'm just talking about the part where people think it's difficult to plot an interception course because something is moving. Physically speaking, if you have a higher delta v (ability to change velocity), you can obviously always put speed your target and eventually hit it. Algorithmically speaking, the mathematics of any constant turn or moving target is very easy.

>>63930955
where is your olympic flag chang?

>>63930982
Again, >>63926148

>>63930985
Sitting right next to chinese Taipei in the closet, lmao.

>>63930982
the issue is there is not enough high quality GaN in the US to make anything. And now GaN is being replaced by GaO in the PLA. It's over.
The US don't even get to have sloppy second. They could have bought DJI farming drone to salvage the part for AESA but Trump has just banned DJI too. Kek

>>63930990
the terminal phase being +/- 300 nmiles

>>63930997
>Buzzwords
>Samefagging
>Declarations of victory ad nauseam
Something tells me the feelings of the chinese people were hurt today

>>63931004
Nope, more like 20 miles in the atmosphere above the target. You don't even know what terminal phase means.

>>63929876
There is definitely error, but it's a pretty big fucking ship. An aircraft carrier is quite possibly the biggest thing you could try to hit. It's larger than most buildings.

>The predicted impact point will have an error
Not in the prediction itself, under some constant turn or acceleration. But they can come from other sources.
>By getting outside of strike zone or gimbal limits
It moves at most at ~50km/hr, or 14 meters per second. That is, to get 45 degrees off bore sight, at a missile 140 meters away, it would take five seconds. ie all it would take in this extremely bad case is the missile has to be able to achieve angular velocity of 7 degrees per second. That's like, taking 50 seconds to do a 360.

>>63931005
>Something tells me the feelings of the chinese people were hurt today
When are they ever NOT hurt? lol

>>63930990
>>63926148
Again it's not very hard. Even if
>Your missile was 1km away
>You're moving perpendicular to its path at maximum speed of 14 meters per second
You'd only need to change trajectory by a few degrees per second to be pointed directly at it.

>>63931029
It's a sliding scale from "pretending not to think about Taiwan" all the way to "take a can of gasoline and light myself on fire from anger".

>>63931040
>You'd only need to change trajectory
Again, >>63926148

>>63931043
My man do you understand what terminal phase is?

>>63931098
Do you? Of course not

>>63930429
You ever seen a mainlander? They look like fucking pugs

>>63931100
Terminal phase is when a ballistic missiles reenters the atmosphere and starts to experience atmospheric drag again, enabling it to maneuver aerodynamically. If you for some reason think this is very close to the ship, no. This happens approx 60 kilometers above sea level.

Now I'm very interested to know what YOU think terminal phase is, and why it makes it impossible to hit a ship

>>63921952 (OP)
Simulators don't give the same sense of flight or unscripted errors, and they can sure as hell afford to spend the raw materials and flight hours. We did the same thing when our fleet was new and growing, nowadays we use old ships as the USN shrinks and the fleet ages out.

>>63931109
The missile needs to acquire the target with its onboard seeker first, for which it needs to slow down against the atmosphere via a pull-up maneuver, which happens in the lower and denser air, and only after that can the now significantly slowed down missile home in on the target using very limited altitude, speed and gliding surface, resulting in a tiny correction radius. Against a fast and actively maneuvering target from a considerable distance away the probability of actually lobbing the missile in the right area is nothing short of guesswork.
>and why it makes it impossible to hit a ship
I love it when fags know they lost the argument so they created a blatant strawman as a last cop-out.

>muh canards.

just shut up mutt
if i wanted your unmanuable crap i'll buy a brick plane.

thing is both typoon and j10 can beat all of your f16 series aircaft.
you only got prototyp=es you don't even make jets in any real number anymore you tard.

but 6th gen isn't about lack of conards or tail fins.

its about range and fuel.
lack of a tail makes your plane slugish and lack of carards makes it less manuable relying on range when both chinese and russians can out number you is not what makes the 6th gen great

its its range and stealth profile.

in other words hitting the target before the engagement.

your missing the point.

the 5th gen fighter would beat a 6th gen in a close turning fight 100%
but it cannot out stealth it.

how ever the 6th gen had no manual weapons like MG
which all 5th gen fighters do have.
in fact the chengdo and the f22 at close range would wipe your ass

thast is why the 6th gen has range in mind,
wityh both chinese and usa.
and because they have better radars its who looks first shoots first idea.

>>63931147
You're making a bunch of vague statements without understanding the physics involved, and they just cancel out. The ability to reach a target is just delta v. A ballistic missile obviously has far greater delta v than a standard anti ship missile. When you have delta v , you can do things like convert altitude into speed or vice versa, it doesn't matter. Your particular argument essentially boils down to for the seeker to work, the delta v needs to be incredibly low. Now this can pretty much be engineered away for the above mentioned reason - like gliding upwards to reduce speed. But the math works out that there will always be a trajectory for a missile that is higher and or faster than a non ballistic missile.

>>63931196
There was nothing vague about my description. I clearly understand far more than you do about the subject. Delta v doesn't matter because, again, the missile doesn't maneuver until the terminal phase. There is no math and no solution to making the tiny control surfaces on the missile into anything else.

“Multipolar world, no more Sahib!”
Loathsome Tamil Nadu Sadhus Shriek
In Rio slums and Cario city streets
Massing tides of thirdie swine repeat
Their tired lines against the west
At a Chinese shill master’s behest
All because they have forgot
We have a Maxim gun, and they have not

>>63930453
The entire point of muh hypersanics is that the mid-course phase doesn't give enough time for a ship to sail outside of seeker range.
Chink missiles would still need a drone or aircraft for mid-course guidance updates on a slower missile, which can be shot down, so making the missile arrive faster makes up it.

chinks are natural cowards because the're domesticated animals bred for slave labor. they're too cowardly to do anything (other than be cheap slaves). so it's just a chinese final warning thing.

>>63930926
What a fucking difference

>>63931012
>That is, to get 45 degrees off bore sight, at a missile 140 meters away
You're not getting outside of gimbal limits from 140 meters away.
You should be doing that while the missile hasn't even turned its own seeker on.

>>63931918
Bruh, all the touted hypersanics are rebranded copies of ballistic missiles from the 80s. Only gliders are different but those are used exclusively for land attack. There is no midcourse guidance here.

>>63921952 (OP)
All you need to know is that Rafale was shot down by J-10C.

>>63932781
*jeets were shot down by chinks

>>63931183
Bad bait, chinkshill tends to have much better spelling because he’s scared of what westerners think and wants to appear unbothered and smug when he’s not.

>>63921952 (OP)
>They built a giant ship un the desert to test out their missiles
>The ship appears to be completely intact

I guess the missiles didnt work?

>>63922292
Saw the entire thing on google map, it bends as well and reading a article about it i think from twz. It actually does turn like a carrier would doing evasive maneuvers. So its pretty decent for training, especially because the missile itself isnt preprogrammed for the route and its just is just to identify and try to hit the target. When it shows up within its sight. So its perfect for testing out missiles.

>>63932838
chill i'm living in a anglo country fool
the aim-175 is not a amraam
the aim-120D is a amraam.
the aim-120X is not a thing with mainstay forces its a cope and it very short supply.

your talking to a immoral BF109E fighter ace.
please shut up rookie.
USMIC needs better copes.
also chinese PL-01A is way better than your Aim-120D's and no the US DoD does not have ample Aim-175's or the newer variants in any number that would equal a ten years supply at bast a 5 year supply given its age would be more
realistic.
but aim-120D's are in huge volumes.
i mean they where purpose build for the f15 and f16 families and later the f22 and f35 family
but f 22 and f 35 and use alot more weapon systems age playing a factor and modern gear.

yes yes block upgrades yada yada.
but its not fleet wide never is.
its likely only on the mainland and not over seas bases for obvious fucking reasons.

>>63933286
>i'm living in a anglo country fool
duh, you're a fag pretending to be retarded for attention, i just said that.

>>63931947
>all the touted hypersanics are rebranded copies of ballistic missiles from the 80s.
Right.
>Only gliders are different but those are used exclusively for land attack.
>There is no midcourse guidance here.
Land attack is kind of a red herring.
China's development of long range A2A missiles and hypersonics is all based on keeping AWACS and tankers as far away as possible, and carrier groups outside of their own aircraft's attack range.
Naval attack requires a drone or surveillance aircraft to provide midcourse updates, otherwise you're blind whenever you lose sat coverage. That gets your shit shot down. Hypersonics allow you to get a snapshot of the current location of a carrier group, launch, and the missile gets there quickly enough for the ships to still be within a reasonable search range.
Attacking land targets is useful. Winning the naval engagement by denying air power is the prize.

>>63926537
Imagine being this stupid and indignant about it.

>>63930429
你的小鸡鸡很小,你的祖母是日本慰安妇。

>>63921952 (OP)
Wouldn't it be better to make half-scale replicas to train your pilots on hitting smaller targets and making it easier to hit critical areas when attacking the full-scale version later?

>>63930481
Are you retarded?

>>63935252
The pilots aren't manually steering these missiles, they're shot from long range from the air, sea or land, and they slow down to below hypersonic to clear the plasma bubble and activate their own radar seeker like a normal anti-ship missile would.

>>63935291
A missile at Mach Fuck would still hit it, though.
In relative terms it would have barely moved in the time it takes for a missile to cover a few dozen miles.

>>63932781
>>63932806
*Poos were shot down by Pakis
>Muh monkee model!
Yes.

>>63933286
I love when you post. You are entertainingly dumb.

>>63921952 (OP)
its retarded
if you want to test antiship missiles you buy an old/about to retire ship and shoot it thats what every defense company does

>>63935153
There is no evidence whatsoever that the gliders could be used for anything but land targets or at least things that are completely unmovable. Neither is there any for them having any kind of terminal guidance that would allow them to actually hit a stationary ship reliably without a nuke warhead. For all intents and purposes these gliders are just regular ballistic missiles with a bit more range that are harder to shoot down due to flying in a gap between exoatmospheric and regular interceptors.
>Hypersonics allow you to get a snapshot of the current location of a carrier group, launch, and the missile gets there quickly enough for the ships to still be within a reasonable search range.
No they don't, not any more than supersonic cruise missiles soviets were building. To begin with, to get outside the of the carrier strike range you'd need flight time of 5-10 minutes which is a whole lot of distance that the ship can cover in this timeframe, especially since unlike your regular antiship cruise missiles going pitbull in a straight line these missiles must land within a specific area, resulting in a much lower chance of actually picking the ship In it's seeker in time as you need to accurately guess both the range and direction rather than just azimuth, and with much less capacity to maneuver because of the unpowered flight, specific flight profile and limited aerodynamic surfaces or wings for gliding or pulling gs at anything but high mach speeds where any tiny movement results in a huge overload regardless.

>>63921952 (OP)
Could be useful for doing a machine learning image training model for AI assisted EO guided ordnance, about the only practical useful reason I can think of for building that

>>63935316
And missiles spawn at a few dozen miles pointed directly at the carrier, right? They don't have to try and predict where the carrier is going to be throughout the entire kill chain process, since it would be unsportsmanlike of the USN to do anything other then be a perfectly still target, right?

The amount of retardation on display in this thread is mindboggling.

>>63922037
Very implessive
>Meanwhile, the USN literally more than a century ago...

>>63922031
>>even if you did, face saving culture forbids you from sinking said legacy ships
Remember that time we sank a supercarrier called the fucking AMERICA so we could learn how to build even better supercarriers and it turned out it was actually already pretty hard to sink?
Goddamn it feels good not to be a face-saving culture.

>>63924781
>the most realistic way
Have they tried an actual ship on the actual ocean that's moving in something other than a straight line in a pre-known direction?

>>63936812
Yeah but the chinsects told me their wumaowaffen missiles (never tested on so much as a fishing boat) can sink one in a single hit

>>63930997
Man, your English is like 95% the way there but boy is that last 5% jarring.

>>63931109
That's not what 'terminal phase' means in the context of guided missiles.

>>63931129
>nowadays we use old ships as the USN shrinks and the fleet ages out.
Why my fellow American (who sounds exactly like a Chinese demoralization script), "we" were doing sinking exercises with decommissioned battleships back when (you) hadn't even finished your descent into warlordism.

>>63936851
>never tested on so much as a fishing boat
Actually, thanks to the Singapore Navy the USN got to test Chinese AShMs against a decommissioned OHP a few years ago, so we probably have a better idea of the missiles' actual effects than the Chinese themselves.

>>63921952 (OP)
On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being a vital and purely scientific weapons test with no ulterior motives whatsoever and 10 being that time the Iranians blew up their shitty Nimitz mockup as a "show of force" after General Salami got sliced... I'd say about a 5. Mostly because it doesn't seem particularly useful for testing or for chest-thumping

>>63937032
At least the IRGCN got to have a fun day playing pretend out of it.

>>63936812
Carriers have absolutely no armor and are easily sunk by a single hit from a large anti-ship missile.
The warheads on those is above a ton and will blow the carrier literally into 2 pieces after penetrating the hull and several bulkheads with ease.

>>63927905
What the fuck is that patch supposed to be. I genuinely can't tell what I'm looking at.

>>63927905
>>63939455
Wait that's supposed to be a mushroom with eyes??? Jesus, patch art has come a long way since the 70s.

>>63922292
the track emulates carrier evasive movements, moves at carrier battle speed, and is targeted by long range missile forces hundreds of kilometers away.

it's obviously a gimmick, but does signal plausible capability to repel American Intervention in a Taiwan strait conflict. remember that the Chinese are building enough ASMs to deplete the total sum of all American naval defensive missiles

>>63939488
the problem arises when it's necessary to relay all of this information to the missile before it's too late, while it's in complete comms blackout due an ionized bubble of air surrounding it.

>>63937255
proofs?

>>63939730

>>63939536
they have a variety of ballistic and hypersonic ASMs. the newer hypersonic cruise missiles are significantly more maneuverable than traditional ASBMs

>>63940223
>maneuverable
that's great, it's also blind, as i just mentioned

>>63936970
SinkEX were not a routine thing back then, barring several years where Billy Mitchell's autism and post-WW1 demilitarization intersected. For routine pilot training operations rather than weapon evaluation and damage control testing it's far more sensible to use replica targets if you can afford the expense of replica ships, just like much smaller scale of tank crews training to shoot at tank silhouettes. And if you don't think a sign of frequent, realistic training by a major industrial power is cause for concern then I reckon you're unconsciously willing to accept a Chinese century, because complacency kills.

>>63924995
Yeah they design it to work in 3d from grounds up, but they still don't know if it will track correctly if they don't test it moving that way.What if there's a minimal error that doesn't show when you move in one direction but starts to rapidly stacks up as soon as more than one row in some matrix changes at the same time? What if running correction changing motor 100x per second instead of twice through the entire bomb flight causes makes some part resonate and screw up your sensor readings? You can't be sure before you test.

>>63924793
More impressive for propaganda purposes.

These threads are a goldmine of americuck cope

>>63921952 (OP)
this is not a terrible idea
>test your missiles against ECM/CWIS
>test your ECM/CWIS against missiles

>>63931196
You're a fucking know nothing brainlet. Any retard can vomit out delta v and not know shit about it, nor how a MaRV works. That anon is 100% correct, and you are retarded. Shut your retarded fucking mouth and stop shitting up the board with your retarded vomit.

>do you need to train like you fight?

>>63942007
>Run away from any possible engagement like scared insects
So what they built a big carrier to drive away from? Do they practice abandoning ship and how to be recovered by American rescue crews?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/06/un-peacekeepers-refused-to-help-south-sudan-rebels-raped-aid-workers-report

>>63925129
studying the osama raid makes sense tho if it helps them learn how americans fight.

>>63942041

>>63942069
Simulations is better than nothing, they definitely know western tactics is superior and the need to learn and prepare for them. Even in their own war games sim, Chinese soldiers who studied and emulate western tactics can already destroy the other team employing traditional tactics.

>>63942078
I notice you didn't report with any recent chinese combat actions lol. I don't know if that or the seething wojak itself is a better own goal

>>63942069
>Desperately takes notes to avoid getting wrecked like literal third world sandniggers
If America is hitting china with Osama raids then they're beyond done. What that was is a miserable attempt at dick waving international relevance when they literally run from niggers with sticks

>>63921952 (OP)
They might just be training their AI on a full scale mockup for more accuracy.

IMO this is a ripe moment to attack the chinks. They're blatantly in the "act strong when you're weak" phase.

>>63936937
He still speaks better English as a second language than the average monolingual mutt though.

>>63931101
lol you can't even see your own dick fat fuck

>>63926540
Part of the agreement the government has with the scrappers is that they must destroy the vessel and sale otherwise are forbidden, double true for foreign sale. They even have o lookers from the gov there to make sure it’s done properly

>>63926578
They're not, they don't get offended at people talking shit about their government, but they're not hugely different culturally.

>>63936986
That's Indonesia not Singapore.
>so we probably have a better idea of the missiles' actual effects than the Chinese themselves.
I have no Idea why you'd assume the Chinese wouldn't have this data considering their pretty decent relations with Indonesia. These types of things are pretty porous too, Pakistan has access to CAMM-ER, despite it being relatively new, so China probably has tonnes of data on that.

>>63942041
The PLAN could have gained some good practice by working the Red Sea, keeping on combat alert, tracking and intercepting missiles/drones. All while winning goodwill of "See? We're helping keep order."
Instead, they ignored civilian ships sending distress signals and went "Not my problem." Attitude like that is why China will never have mutually beneficial allies or replace the US as a peacekeepers (but you can bet the Chinese and others will continue to bitch about the US when it does something. )

>>63926537
>There are missiles which hit other missiles going several THOUSAND mph pulling dozens of Gs.

1. Missiles don't engage in evasive manuvers and follow a straight forward flight path

2. Intercepting munitions aren't meant to take out missiles and rarely do so, just damage them enough so that they go off target or can't properly detonate the warhead

3. There is no AShM that has these capabilites

>>63947623
Yeah man, just fuck all of their ties with the global south by helping Israel, why not? Just to help out seething Euros who hate them, and Americans who hate them more than anything else in the world?

>>63924804
The issue is using old ships you're going to decommission anyways is essentially free. Spending money to make a mock up that isn't even fully accurate isn't.

>>63930481
So then why even put on a track at all if there's no difference?

>>63937255
You need way more than a ton to crack a carrier, a ton isn't even a notably large warhead anon

>>63937255
>t. Smelly Gopnik
Your carriers might sink from that, but the grand fleet of the RES PVBLICA shall shrug off all fire for weeks on end.

>>63947641
>trade route exists mostly to ship goods between China and Europe
>somehow it's not China's problem but instead the US needed to step up

Did you complain when the entire world ganged up on the Somali pirates as well, or did you chest thump because China actually did something there you dumb chink?

>>63947815
Somali pirates were much more indiscriminate than the Houthis, did you miss the part where China cut a deal with them to leave their ships alone?

>>63947861
Ah yes, the Houthis were well known for their target identification and certainly weren't shooting at any random ship they could see. That's why the shipping through the strait, a major economic artery for China, barely dipped.

Oh, wait, no, that was the delusions of brown people. They actually were just chimping out at anything they saw.

>>63947871
>houthis aren't accurate all the time
>that means China didn't cut a deal with them
not only that, but to call back to your last example, Somali pirates were a politically easy target, absolutely no one gave a fuck about them, and everyone thought they were a nuisance. The Houthis were directly trying to economically damage Israel (which they did successfully), and Europe/USA, China joining a coalition against them would be seen as siding with Israel by a lot of their global south politics. If you weren't incredibly US centric you'd know that they do a lot to court the global south.
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-china-struck-deal-yemen-houthi-rebels-ship-safety/

>>63947907
Once again, this deal clearly wasn't trusted enough to restore shipping through the strait, and it hurt Europe just as much as it did China, while ironically enough not being a huge problem for the US. However, instead of establishing that people aren't allowed to touch global shipping under pain of death, something that should be very important for an export based economy, China instead allowed themselves to be held hostage by a bunch of shitskins until the USN showed up and did their job. If you don't understand how this might be damaging to their intentions to project themselves as saviors of the global south and a stronk opposing pole to the US, you are dumb and making excuses for Chinese cowardice. They demonstrated quite clearly that they have no intentions of actually ensuring freedom of navigation and trade, even when it heavily impacts China, which is a rather bad look for someone who's trying to position themselves as a protectorate superpower in a region where everything goes by boat.

>>63947924
>Once again, this deal clearly wasn't trusted enough to restore shipping through the strait, and it hurt Europe just as much as it did China, while ironically enough not being a huge problem for the US
That's because it was designed to hurt Israel.
>However, instead of establishing that people aren't allowed to touch global shipping under pain of death, something that should be very important for an export based economy, China instead allowed themselves to be held hostage by a bunch of shitskins until the USN showed up and did their job.
That's because stopping the Houthis would directly support Israel, which China doesn't want to do.
>If you don't understand how this might be damaging to their intentions to project themselves as saviors of the global south and a stronk opposing pole to the US, you are dumb and making excuses for Chinese cowardice. They demonstrated quite clearly that they have no intentions of actually ensuring freedom of navigation and trade, even when it heavily impacts China, which is a rather bad look for someone who's trying to position themselves as a protectorate superpower in a region where everything goes by boat.
China has repeatedly stated that they are non-interventionists, this isn't showing anything that people didn't already know. Do you think the US would allow the Myanmar civil war on their border? No, probably not, but China doesn't intervene, so they're not doing anything about it.

>>63947963
>I can't stop someone from shooting my boats! That would help isreal!

Absolutely deranged

>>63947782
Sending Old Kuzzy to the bottom of the sea would surely spell disaster for all

>>63947963
>China has repeatedly stated that they are non-interventionists, this isn't showing anything that people didn't already know.

>what is Tibet
>what is vietnam
>what is korea
>what is India
>what is taiwan

>>63947963
Nta but how do you not understand that China going in there and going 'We're making sure freedom of trade and navigation is secured' would be a positive for China in multiple ways and this absolute nonsense about protecting freedom of trade and navigation is actually really about helping Israel so that's why they didn't do that.

Absolute baffling point of view. Ludicrous. Delusional, even.

>>63947963
>but China doesn't intervene
lol, lmao. Burma is a puppet state (not using their tranny name) to China, they want it in a constant conflict because it means cheap resources as the government needs 'friends' and money. China only steps in when the crime gangs kidnap Chinese citizens.

>>63947982
They really buy into that
>Do nothing
>Win
Bullshit.
Big Navy means they're the next superpower. Skip all the gaining actual experience, making meaningful partnerships, showing other nations you're capable. Do you LOOK impressive? Then you're the next king. And kings don't lift a finger to help peasants. Peasants serve the king.

Serious question:
Are missiles just magic?

>>63948006
Exactly. You can beat USA in a war but if you don't offer the world as a viable alternative to USA then you're not going to stay on top. Trump has done a lot to damage the USA by being a schizo POTUS and making every single thing the US does seem unreliable. While that can work with
>le you don't know what I'm going to do if even I don't
Experienced politicians like Putin know it's bullshit and aren't tricked. It does however make other states worry. Trump started saying he is going to invade Mexico and Greenland and Canada, get out of NATO etc etc... Then few days ago says he's going to totally honour Article 5. Well, is he? We don't know. He's so schizo we (that's both Americans and non-Americans) can't trust him to do anything he says or campaigned on (though Fell For It Again Award here).

But that's all meaningless if there is no viable alternative and Russia isn't it, despite their desire to be. Germany has history so while they have the money and power to do it, I doubt they will. French? Nope. Bongs? They have the history and credentials but not the money, political willpower or public support for such an endeavor (and they're happy being America's bitch anyway). So that leaves Japan and China. Japan can't do it unless they remove their military limitations and invest heavily... So at the moment the only viable alternative to USA is China in terms of military power, political will and economic strength. But if China cannot even show the world that they will step in when the retards in the world act up and impact everybody else, then people will just go back to the Anglos who actually do something.

>>63948041
The key thing to understand is that while the EU is a lumbering, decrepit Chimera, if it choses to wake up, it's capable of forcing either side to bend the knee.

>>63948060
If the EU woke up I'd hope we'd be wise enough to ask the Bongs, Aussies, Leafs and Kiwi's to form the Anglosphere Confederation. Already do Five Eyes, why not make a economic bloc?

>>63948041
Trump is also gone in less than four years. He's not going to be a lifelong leader. And eventually, the pendulum in the US will shift into level-headed moderatism again. A foreign enemy pushing the US into war could easily be the thing that revives that, putting the focus on a problem we can all unite against instead of fighting each other.
Russia blew its chance. China has several types of clock running against it.

>>63947969
>>63947982
There's only been two hit Chinese ships in the entirety of the red sea crisis, the Huang pu, and Freda (Huang pu was due to the houthis having outdated logs, and Freda was a mistake as well), their deal has largely worked, their own interests are secured to the point that Israeli ships have attempted to mask themselves as Chinese owned to avoid being hit, China intervening would be purely to protect other ships, and therefore would serve Israeli interests. I have no idea how this is that hard for you to understand.
>>63947982
Because most of Chinas allies either don't give a shit, or are directly opposed to Israel, China doesn't want to use force, and prefers negotiation, that's literally it. "Protecting freedom of navigation" is literally just making sure that ships can dock at Haifa, why the fuck would they want that?

>>63947976
>what is Tibet
Internal affairs, and also from 70 years ago
>what is vietnam
Directly affected their interests, and from 40+ years ago
>what is korea
Affected their interests, and from 70 years ago
>what is India
50+ year old foreign policy, not what China is today
>what is taiwan
Directly affects them, and (from their PoV) internal affairs.
China hasn't directly intervened in another country in decades
>>63947988
>lol, lmao. Burma is a puppet state (not using their tranny name) to China
How do you unironically believe this? The only part of Myanmar that is under Chinese influence is the UWSA which isn't even involved in the civil war.
>>63948041
Being a global security guarantor is closer to being unipolar?
All of this is funny, because Operation prosperity guardian literally failed as well, Trump washed his hands of it and cut a similar deal that China did, the Houthis are still allowed to target Israeli ships.

>>63948087
The issue is Trump's actions has made our allies go 'Hang on, they might do this again, nothing is really sure any more'. I remember reading some article on it and the belief is basically 'We're not going back to pre-Trump status quo any more'. Which is why Germany is doing its 4th attempt at trying to rule Europe by going balls to the walls retarded with spending, trying to make the United European Army etc. As I said here >>63948071 I am a champion of forming an Anglosphere Federation. Independent states like the EU but a Anglosphere passport that allows easier travel between those countries, a economic imperative to help each other other other states, dedicated group research, a joint military research system (allowing us to combine our knowledge and expertise) which could allow cheaper and better military equipment. Set up a 'Anglosphere Council' where each state votes or appoints a guy to represent their state in decisions that affect the whole. I think it would be better for us in the long term. The Bongs have thought about forming their Commonwealth Economic Bloc and that would be a big issue if happened so we could step in before that. But I am also a champion of joining the Commonwealth but 99% of Americans are retarded and think that means Britain will 'rule us' when there is a difference between Commonwealth Realms (where the legal head of state is their King) and Commonwealth Nations (where you're part of the group and help each other). It would also mean we'd win the Commonwealth Games every year lmao. Give our athletes some experience for Olympics so we can heem the Chinese too.

>>63948101
China showing they can maintain peace, order and security for the global community, or at least willing to put their food down would be a massive fuck you to USA. Instead the only two states that tried to solve it were USA and UK.

>>63924829
So what's the point of training in an area not bigger than a small block, where the streets are to scale but there are no building to orient around? Or is this for some kind of ordinance test?

>>63948133
>China showing they can maintain peace, order and security for the global community, or at least willing to put their food down would be a massive fuck you to USA. Instead the only two states that tried to solve it were USA and UK.
But they're not trying to provide global security to the world, they're trying to pry a bloc away from the USA, and carve out a sphere of influence in Asia.

>>63948149
Right and you do that by showing that you're capable of maintaining peace, order and security.

>>63948154
Why would they do that outside of their desired sphere?
>you prove that you can protect your sphere of influence, by going out of your sphere of influence, and intervening in other countries matters.
China is presenting themselves as a country that won't bomb you, so they're not going to go to the middle east, and fucking bomb Yemen. Seriously, is this the only way Americans can understand foreign policy? That if you're not bombing a country, and showing might 24/7 you're worthless?

>>63948161
Presenting yourself as a country that will let third world countries attack your commercial ships, make a "deal" with them that prevents this, and then do nothing when they continue to attack your ships, is certainly an interesting tactic

>>63948108
>directly affected their interests

So interventionism isn't interventionism so long as you have an interest the conflict?

>annexing other independent states is "integral affairs"

>>63948175
>make a deal to not get attacked
>an attack happens because of a mistake
>accept the apology, and move on
>NO WRONG YOU MUST BOMB THEM NOW
Why didn't the US obliterate israel when they bombed the USS Liberty and machine gunned the life rafts?

>>63948185
Anon looking the other way on other states trying to kill your people because "they apologize" is the most cucked foreign policy decision I can think

>>63948190
Yeah, so why didn't the US invade israel when they sank the USS liberty and machine gunned the life rafts?

International responsibilities like "Help ships signaling distress"? No. That might scuff the paint of our warship. Then it wouldn't look as good in the photo op.

>>63948108
>it's not interventionism when it directly affects our interests
>yea, shipping prices going up on all Chinese exports doesn't affect us because it also hurts le heckin jews and Euros too

Implessive showing as ever by the chinks.

>>63948287
I'm sure they've not weighed up the cost benefit analysis at all anon, and that you're smarter than the CMC and Chinese government.

>>63948313
I'm sure Putin did some math before kicking off Ukraine and yet here we are, my yellow compatriot.

>>63948316
>Invading another country has the same cost benefit analysis as not getting involved in another conflict.

>>63937255
Idk about cracking in half but getting hit with a Bazalt would be a significant emotional event for everyone involved, but the issue is the bigger your missile, the easier it is to intercept. If you're hitting a carrier with heavy AShMs said carrier (and it's entire group) is most likely already fucked beyond recognition and you're just delivering a mercy kill.

>>63925267
It's a Shagohod carrier, not an aircraft carrier

>>63926236
Aircraft carriers have an ample amount of this thing called inertia. Their unpredictability in movement could be measured in terms of hours.

>>63926566
A literal one degree turn one minute before impact is going to displace the thing by 17.5 meters if we assume 1 km/min, way smaller than the CEP of the missile coming after it. Admit that you're simply math illiterate and move on.

>>63929803
List all the anti ship missiles with a few feet of CEP.

>>63926148
It is at least an order of magnitude easier for a missile to hit a zig zagging aircraft carrier than it is for the local LEO to hit your zig zagging nigger ass with a 9 mm after you have failed to comply with their commands to stop and show them your hands.

>>63949450
>one minute before impact
Always the same cop out, lmao.

>>63949450
Show your maths

>>63949360
Not only that, they have 2-4 destroyers, and a cruiser you have to get through. Those ships - along with the carrier - have extremely good radars, interceptors, with EW/EA abilities. Not only that, they have access to extremely capable space based ELINT, SIGINT, early warning, SAR, and tracking - even space based MTI satellites. The CSG is going to know about that missile as soon as the booster lights off, and probably before as the missile launcher has to move to, and set up to be able to launch. They'll also have intel on that missile from launch to terminal phase. There is not sneaking up on the CSG, nor does radar horizon matter, as they have senosrs 100s of miles above watching everything

>>63949548
Bruh, that's what the post he was replying to said. See here >>63926566
>A turn of one degree at a minute before impact moves it substantially out of the impact zone.

>>63949616
Looks like he did it with simple elementary school pythagorian right triangle trigonometry.
1000 m hypotenuse and 1000 m long side with 1 deg angle between them would mean the short side is 17.5 m.
But in reality the turn is not instant. The real displacement would be significantly less than 17 meters.

The other anon is not only math illiterate, but probably a noguns as well.
Any shooter should know MoA well enough to be capable of instinctually estimating the scale of 60 MoA at 1 km.

>>63950668
>I'm going to be hyper literal and pedantic

Okay, let's do that. The beam of a modern USN carrier is about 40m at the water line, so even moving a hair under 20m is enough to take any hit that was going to be on the turning away side into just hitting the flight deck instead of being able to punch through important machinery in the bottom of the ship, significantly reducing the odds of a mission kill from escalating into a k-kill. However, if we're not hyper literal autists, you might look at >>63941754 and see that a modern carrier is capable of juking a little harder then that and the guy who's clearly being hyperbolic with the speed and distance of the missile might be doing the same.

You make the argument that there are interceptor missiles that can intercept a 6 meter long Mach 6 missile in mid-air easy peasy, but that same missile can't hit a 30 knts 330m long aircraft carrier.
You should be euthanised for being literally too retarded to deserve existing.

>>63949649
What an utterly retarded post.

Satellite coverage is not constant.
A satellite can't maneuver to follow the CSG.
A low orbit satellite going 8 km/s can't provide real time imaging data. Unless you have a constellation more dense than Starlink, which you don't.
At best you get a thin strip of data every 90 minutes when the satellite passes over, and that's making the unrealistic assumption that you sail along the satellite's orbital inclination.

If I had a nickel for every idiotic space post on /k/, I'd be a millionaire

>>63950758
>kill chains are all exactly the same

how else are going to know how it performs? stupid question.

>>63929841
You understand that still requires water, right?

>>63950758
>but that same missile
its not the same missiles

>>63950795
You do understand that there's water in the atmosphere, right?
The problem is that rain that falls on the ocean, or already flood-prone areas, is fucking useless to us. We need rain that refills our aquifers with fresh water, not dump it back into the ocean.
So if you have a bunch of humidity just being blown into the ocean and forming clouds that rain where we don't need, you can try to cause condensation over dry areas so that clouds form and rain over land.
Obviously if you just let it rain over desert sand that water slips past the sand and the subterranean water will only surface in a natural oasis. It rains in the desert. It just doesn't stop until it hits impermeable soil/rock. That's why you need plants to form a more appropriate soil. The plants need water and the water needs plants.

>>63929841
Cloudseeding doesn't actually work nearly as well as people want it to, mostly because you need big clouds with lots of water. It's basically a method that tips the scales on WHEN it is raining, not IF it is raining. If you have no clouds over your desert, you can't really seed anything.

>>63948196
NTA but holy fuck are you an obnoxious tiny-dick little chink. Absolutely nobody thinks you look cool or strong for getting dogged by the houthis and no amount of “but whatabout” will change that. Your own women would rather fuck and marry foreigners than you, it’s literally over chang.

>>63954869
SEETHING

>>63948326
>if you kill your enemies, they win
Wow implessive strong foreign policy from the Chinksect Federation.

>>63954872
Your women lust after me you little ricelet

>>63954872
that is what the chink was doing, correct.

>>63954888
Wtf don't you guys usually assume it's samefagging? How could you tell I was someone else? Is this the eglin mods they speak of?

>>63954923
>the eglin mods
good job identifying yourself
i will now proceed to laugh even harder.
you'd think it'd be easy to not be detected on an anonymous imageboard, but your ilk is so schizophrenic and has such recognizeable keyphrases and writing styles that you just can't help it, and don't have the self-awareness required to understand WHY you get detected, which causes even more confusion.
>how could you tell i was someone else
i see you have a guilty consciency about being a subhuman samefagger who has to create imaginary friends to feel less lonely in threads, it's good that you at least feel some subconscious level of shame about it, that's progress.

>>63954923
>da eglin mods
lol, lmao even

>>63954923
addendum:
>how could you tell i was someone else
oh, did you think i was being serious? you're not very good at reading between the lines, are you?
i was mocking you for describing what you were doing in your own post, almost like taping a sticker to your forehead that says SEETHING.
i understand if this is a bit above your reading comprehension so it must've been very confusing for you, you must've finally thought that you succeeded in samefagging accidentally, when you didn't mean to, right?
that's SO cute.