054/A FFG Thread II

[bd popeye]

I moved 11 post to start a new thread on the Falklands War...1982...The majority of the post here are very intelligent however you fellows need to..

bd popeye super moderator

 

[nameless]

I don't see anywhere in my post (including the parts you highlighted) where I claimed the 40N6 can engage 10m altitude cruise missiles as well as ballistic missiles,

Yes you did, you refer to this magical 40N6 SAM that can down fighters, CMs and can be repurposed for BMs incontrast to the Chinese missile.

if by that you mean that its chance of success vs ASCM's is the same or almost the same vs ballistic missiles. I actually think the 40N6 CAN engage sea-skimmers but is likely a very poor choice for doing so compared to say the 9M96, given its shear size and aerodynamics probably optimized for range rather than high-G turns, and possibly sensor differences as well. YOU were the one who made the much stronger claim that the 40N6 was "not designed for" 10m ASCM's, by which I assume you mean it simply cannot engage them.

So you are now saying 40N6 is indeed designed for those ASCMs and that my claim is wrong?

There is a difference between "not optimized for" and "not able to engage at all". Whereas the 40N6 is not optimized for sea-skimmers,

What is your definition of not optimized vs not able? Where is your proof 40N6 can at all and if so its sucess rate?

IMO exoatmospheric ABM's like the SC-19 cannot engage sea-skimmers at all due to the different sensor package and missile body design.

You were refering to the KSAT-1 but now it is SC-19. You just said above that 40N6 has the wrong body and possibly wrong sensors as well.

Regarding my generic use of "SAM's", when I used that term I was referring to generic SAM's (like the 9M96) that are optimized to engage traditional targets such as sea-skimmers and fighters.

You said that when you refered to the S-400, you were refering to the longest range missile. But assuming it is 9M96 you were refering to and since it can be repurposed for ABM as you said where is this distinction?

We are really talking about three systems here: ABM's, super-long range SAM's like the 40N6, and SAM's like the 9M96. IMO each is almost a completely different system, and just because you develop a successful ABM system doesn't mean you automatically have the technology and the free ride to develop any SAM, whether missiles like the 40N6 or ones like the 9M96.

You said SAMs as in 9M96 can be repurposed for ABM and ealier you said 40n6 can be used for 10m CMs, so the technological distinction is not clear at all according to what you said earlier.

 

[Mysterre]

Yes you did, you refer to this magical 40N6 SAM that can down fighters, CMs and can be repurposed for BMs incontrast to the Chinese missile.

Are you intentionally trying to distort what I'm saying or are you just unable to follow the train of thought? Look,

The 40N6 is a huge SAM optimized for ultra-long range, high altitude intercepts, probably of fighters, bombers, and possibly even cruise missiles during their hi flight stage. IMO it is reasonable to assume it can attack fighters and cruise missiles at lower altitudes, but that due to its optimization for long range high altitude engagements it is not likely to be as able to intercept seaskimmers as well as say a RAM or even a 9M96 would be. It is also reasonable to assume that like several other long range missiles, it can be retasked to (intraatmospherically) intercept incoming ballistic missiles below a certain range, e.g. SRBM's, MRBM's, and possibly even IRBM's.

The SC-19 is an exoatmospheric ABM/ASAT weapon. It is NOT reasonable to assume it is able to engage anything other than its intended targets. The SM-3 is similarly configured for exoatmospheric intercepts only and these types of weapons have specialized sensor packages for this purpose.

The 9M96 is a medium to long range SAM optimized to intercept fighters and cruise missiles. This is more of a missile considered to be a 'traditional' SAM.

You were refering to the KSAT-1 but now it is SC-19. You just said above that 40N6 has the wrong body and possibly wrong sensors as well.

It is now clear to me that you are now arguing just for the sake of being ludicrous rather than seeking after the truth. It is also clear you didn't even bother to do your research because if you did you wouldn't still be harping on this alleged KSAT-1. Lion was the one who mentioned KSAT-1. When I mentioned it I put it in quotes, as in "KSAT-1", by which I meant to imply that there was a question as to the correct designation of this ABM. My latest response posts the CORRECT designation of this ABM, which is in fact SC-19.

You are also intentionally distorting what I said about the 40N6, which I find to be intellectually dishonest. Where did I say the 40N6 has the "wrong" body and "wrong" sensors? I implied that the 40N6 is probably not ideally suited for low altitude fast maneuvering targets, but that it could probably engage them, or at least attempt to.

You said that when you refered to the S-400, you were refering to the longest range missile. But assuming it is 9M96 you were refering to and since it can be repurposed for ABM as you said where is this distinction?

Where in the hell did I say the 9M96 could be repurposed as an ABM? If it can, I did not claim it. Certain SAM's in general can be repurposed for ABM. Probably you don't know this, but as I said, certain longer ranged missiles like (specific iterations of) SM-2, Patriot, S-300, S-400 (40N6, happy?), and possibly HQ-9 could perform basic ABM defense.

You said SAMs as in 9M96 can be repurposed for ABM and ealier you said 40n6 can be used for 10m CMs, so the technological distinction is not clear at all according to what you said earlier.

No, I did not say that the 9M96 can be repurposed for ABM, and yes I did say that 40N6 could be used for "10m CMs", though as I also said but you intentionally omitted, the 40N6 is probably not ideal for such a purpose, certainly not as suited as the 9M96.

 

[nameless]

Are you intentionally trying to distort what I'm saying or are you just unable to follow the train of thought? Look,

The 40N6 is a huge SAM optimized for ultra-long range, high altitude intercepts, probably of fighters, bombers, and possibly even cruise missiles during their hi flight stage. IMO it is reasonable to assume it can attack fighters and cruise missiles at lower altitudes, but that due to its optimization for long range high altitude engagements it is not likely to be as able to intercept seaskimmers as well as say a RAM or even a 9M96 would be. It is also reasonable to assume that like several other long range missiles, it can be retasked to (intraatmospherically) intercept incoming ballistic missiles below a certain range, e.g. SRBM's, MRBM's, and possibly even IRBM's.

I am not distorting your words those were your words. This is the frirst time I heard that 40N6 is optimized for fighters or any agile target. "IMO" "reasonable to assume" "not likely" are very weak arguments for technical aspects of a missile when you have no proof that 40N6 can do all these things from IRBM to 10m CMs to fighters. Or rather to be more precise "possibly" IRBMs.

The SC-19 is an exoatmospheric ABM/ASAT weapon. It is NOT reasonable to assume it is able to engage anything other than its intended targets. The SM-3 is similarly configured for exoatmospheric intercepts only and these types of weapons have specialized sensor packages for this purpose.

And 40N6 for 10m CMs is reasonable?

It is now clear to me that you are now arguing just for the sake of being ludicrous rather than seeking after the truth. It is also clear you didn't even bother to do your research because if you did you wouldn't still be harping on this alleged KSAT-1. Lion was the one who mentioned KSAT-1. When I mentioned it I put it in quotes, as in "KSAT-1", by which I meant to imply that there was a question as to the correct designation of this ABM. My latest response posts the CORRECT designation of this ABM, which is in fact SC-19.

How can you not clarify the exact missile? You do not compare missiles performance when you dont even know what you are talking about.

You are also intentionally distorting what I said about the 40N6, which I find to be intellectually dishonest. Where did I say the 40N6 has the "wrong" body and "wrong" sensors? I implied that the 40N6 is probably not ideally suited for low altitude fast maneuvering targets, but that it could probably engage them, or at least attempt to.

So it has the right body and sensors for 10 CMs? Again with the vague "probably not ideally". There are no facts to support the 10m CMs claim.

Where in the hell did I say the 9M96 could be repurposed as an ABM? If it can, I did not claim it. Certain SAM's in general can be repurposed for ABM. Probably you don't know this, but as I said, certain longer ranged missiles like (specific iterations of) SM-2, Patriot, S-300, S-400 (40N6, happy?), and possibly HQ-9 could perform basic ABM defense.

Your own words

And just because you can repurpose SAM's to attack ballistic missiles

Regarding my generic use of "SAM's", when I used that term I was referring to generic SAM's (like the 9M96) that are optimized to engage traditional targets such as sea-skimmers and fighters.

You were pretty specific to point out 9M96.

No, I did not say that the 9M96 can be repurposed for ABM, and yes I did say that 40N6 could be used for "10m CMs", though as I also said but you intentionally omitted, the 40N6 is probably not ideal for such a purpose, certainly not as suited as the 9M96.

Yes you did see above. You said

IMO each is almost a completely different system

Again where is the technological distinction for 40N6 as well as 9M96? "Ideal" is an undefined vague word.

 

[A.Man]

Hudong Zhonghua #9 054A in Dry Dock & #10 Sections Appeared (Total #17 & 18, Not Sure At This Point)

Not Sure About This Photo-Refitting A 054 or Just A Normal Repair Of One 054A

 

[Mysterre]

I am not distorting your words those were your words. This is the frirst time I heard that 40N6 is optimized for fighters or any agile target. "IMO" "reasonable to assume" "not likely" are very weak arguments for technical aspects of a missile when you have no proof that 40N6 can do all these things from IRBM to 10m CMs to fighters. Or rather to be more precise "possibly" IRBMs.

The more you post this kind of wall of senselessness the more I become convinced that you are trying to troll me rather than seeking after the truth. Nobody has "proof" of anything on an internet forum like this. Asking for proof of something is like saying "prove to me there are no Martians". Here we have reasonable discussions based on what little information is available to us. If you want proof, you should leave this forum and go to a math conference.

And 40N6 for 10m CMs is reasonable?

What exactly is "reasonable" to you? You try to make these simplistic one-liners that clearly reveal you are either deliberately ignoring relevant points or not even understanding them in the first place. I already told you that I think the 40N6 could probably attempt to engage "10m CMs" but that this missile is probaly not optimized to do so. If you can't understand why this is a reasonable assumption, you shouldn't even be posting here.

How can you not clarify the exact missile? You do not compare missiles performance when you dont even know what you are talking about.

I know what I'm talking about; it is clear that you do not. You thought there was something fishy when I switched to the correct designation of this weapon, but this is only because you have absolutely no clue that there is no such weapon as "KSAT-1", which I referred to in quotes when responding to Lion in order to place doubt on its correctness. What would be far worse for you is if you didn't actually think something was fishy but just wanted to uselessly nitpick because you don't actually have any real argument in this thread.

So it has the right body and sensors for 10 CMs? Again with the vague "probably not ideally". There are no facts to support the 10m CMs claim.

Maybe you can educate me what sensor differences there are between the 40N6 and the 9M96, because we already know it would be ridiculous for you to argue that the 40N6's body is ideal for intercepting sea-skimmers. Wrong can be interpreted in different ways, which is why I suspect you picked this word so you can create your own "vague" insinuation. Wrong can refer to something like using a can of gasoline to try and extinguish a fire, or wrong can refer to something like using a baseball bat to row a boat. So which wrong do YOU mean? If you mean the latter to refer to the 40N6's ability to intercept seaskimmers, then I would agree. Meaning, you could do it, but it certainly may not work and would obviously not be the ideal solution. If you mean the former, then we have a disagreement. And BTW, I could equally say to you that "there are no facts to support" the 40N6 being unable to engage "10m CMs". Where's your "proof"???

Your own words You were pretty specific to point out 9M96.

Yes you did see above.

Trying to isolate statements out of context and then nitpick them to death wins you no points in the intellectual honesty department, and certainly reveals a pettiness of argument that is bereft of actual substance. When I said SAM's can be coopted for ABM engagements, am I wrong? Of course not. We already have several good examples of exactly this. And when I said SAM's when thinking of the typical stuff (like the 9M96), that is in fact what I mean. Perhaps you should educate yourself and look at the predecessor S-300 system. At least you can look at actual physical photographs of these missiles and learn the difference between the S-300V and the S-300PMU. Also try reading descriptions of expected targets for each of these missiles before you come back and act all incredulous again about what I'm saying.

 

[nameless]

The more you post this kind of wall of senselessness the more I become convinced that you are trying to troll me rather than seeking after the truth. Nobody has "proof" of anything on an internet forum like this. Asking for proof of something is like saying "prove to me there are no Martians". Here we have reasonable discussions based on what little information is available to us. If you want proof, you should leave this forum and go to a math conference.

If you can not intellectually disccus this and resort to name calling then you are the one in the wrong. Dont forget You were the one that said prove me wrong as if demanding proof and now you say this?

What exactly is "reasonable" to you? You try to make these simplistic one-liners that clearly reveal you are either deliberately ignoring relevant points or not even understanding them in the first place. I already told you that I think the 40N6 could probably attempt to engage "10m CMs" but that this missile is probaly not optimized to do so. If you can't understand why this is a reasonable assumption, you shouldn't even be posting here.

What is "could probably attempt"? How can one reach any solid conclusion with this? This is all assumptions with no basis in reality. Yet you accuse me of not seeking the truth, you call your vague opinions and assumptions truth?

I know what I'm talking about; it is clear that you do not. You thought there was something fishy when I switched to the correct designation of this weapon, but this is only because you have absolutely no clue that there is no such weapon as "KSAT-1", which I referred to in quotes when responding to Lion in order to place doubt on its correctness. What would be far worse for you is if you didn't actually think something was fishy but just wanted to uselessly nitpick because you don't actually have any real argument in this thread.

I have pointed out your mistaken logical, unfortunately you cant take any criticism at all.

Maybe you can educate me what sensor differences there are between the 40N6 and the 9M96, because we already know it would be ridiculous for you to argue that the 40N6's body is ideal for intercepting sea-skimmers. Wrong can be interpreted in different ways, which is why I suspect you picked this word so you can create your own "vague" insinuation. Wrong can refer to something like using a can of gasoline to try and extinguish a fire, or wrong can refer to something like using a baseball bat to row a boat. So which wrong do YOU mean? If you mean the latter to refer to the 40N6's ability to intercept seaskimmers, then I would agree. Meaning, you could do it, but it certainly may not work and would obviously not be the ideal solution. If you mean the former, then we have a disagreement. And BTW, I could equally say to you that "there are no facts to support" the 40N6 being unable to engage "10m CMs". Where's your "proof"???

You made vague claims so it is your responsiblity to back them up. "could do it, but it certainly may not work" is an extremely vague term. There has to be some credible source to support you claims, is that so hard to understand?

Trying to isolate statements out of context and then nitpick them to death wins you no points in the intellectual honesty department, and certainly reveals a pettiness of argument that is bereft of actual substance. When I said SAM's can be coopted for ABM engagements, am I wrong? Of course not. We already have several good examples of exactly this. And when I said SAM's when thinking of the typical stuff (like the 9M96), that is in fact what I mean. Perhaps you should educate yourself and look at the predecessor S-300 system. At least you can look at actual physical photographs of these missiles and learn the difference between the S-300V and the S-300PMU. Also try reading descriptions of expected targets for each of these missiles before you come back and act all incredulous again about what I'm saying.

So we are discussing S-300 now? When your claims of the S-400 are still up in the air? Again you did not answer the question. You said SAMs as in 9M96 can be repurposed for ABM and ealier you said 40n6 can be used for 10m CMs, yet you also said that each is almost a completely different system that are technologically unrelated. so the technological distinction is not clear at all according to what you said earlier about the shared capabilities.

 

[Mysterre]

If you can not intellectually disccus this and resort to name calling then you are the one in the wrong. Dont forget You were the one that said prove me wrong as if demanding proof and now you say this?

I'm pretty sure it is now clear to everyone else here that you are not in fact here to intellectually discuss anything. You are now arguing for nothing, nitpicking stupid names like "KSAT-1" and trying to create drama about it where none exists, and not understanding (or refusing to understand) a lick of what is going on here. Also, I'm pretty sure English is not your first language, because I would not be having vocabulary arguments with a native speaker. Such as when I say "prove me wrong", which is a figure of speech serving as a hyperbolic flourish rather than an invitation for a mathematical proof. You should seriously quit while you're behind.

What is "could probably attempt"? How can one reach any solid conclusion with this? This is all assumptions with no basis in reality. Yet you accuse me of not seeking the truth, you call your vague opinions and assumptions truth?

Pretty much all we have here are assumptions. And you not seeking the truth has nothing to do with using certain assumptions as the basis of debate. It has everything to do with you arguing for nothing. You bring absolutely nothing to the table. You have made no arguments of your own but have spent (and wasted) all your energies trying desperately to pick apart mine. This is the sure sign of trolling.

I have pointed out your mistaken logical, unfortunately you cant take any criticism at all.

My "mistaken logical"? LOL Look, if you had any legitimate criticism as part of the pursuit of truth, it would be taken like any other argument in a discussion, debatable and reasonable. As I said, you bring nothing here.

You made vague claims so it is your responsiblity to back them up. "could do it, but it certainly may not work" is an extremely vague term. There has to be some credible source to support you claims, is that so hard to understand?

I made claims based on what I thought was reasonable. I don't have any backup nor did I claim to. Do you have any specs on the S-400? YEAH, I DIDN'T THINK SO. What do you have, may I ask? Neither backup or reason in the first place, so even less than I do.

So we are discussing S-300 now? When your claims of the S-400 are still up in the air? Again you did not answer the question. You said SAMs as in 9M96 can be repurposed for ABM and ealier you said 40n6 can be used for 10m CMs, yet you also said that each is almost a completely different system that are technologically unrelated. so the technological distinction is not clear at all according to what you said earlier about the shared capabilities.

I gave you a solid example of a missile system in service for decades as a predecessor and analogue to the S-400 system so that you can understand what you clearly are still scattered about. No matter how you dishonestly twist my words to try and create an inconsistency, there was none to begin with. The problem lay with your understanding, not with my inconsistency.

We are now stupidly going in circles, and I can see from your posts the trolling will continue on your end no matter what is said by me. We are done here, and the next post you try and use to bait me with will be reported, and we'll let the mods decide.

 

[nameless]

I'm pretty sure it is now clear to everyone else here that you are not in fact here to intellectually discuss anything. You are now arguing for nothing, nitpicking stupid names like "KSAT-1" and trying to create drama about it where none exists, and not understanding (or refusing to understand) a lick of what is going on here. Also, I'm pretty sure English is not your first language, because I would not be having vocabulary arguments with a native speaker. Such as when I say "prove me wrong", which is a figure of speech serving as a hyperbolic flourish rather than an invitation for a mathematical proof. You should seriously quit while you're behind.

Certainly you are not trying to have an intellectual debate here. What is wrong with addressing the "KSAT-1" issue, if you did the missile you were refering to then how can you claim its performance as well as technology? "prove me wrong" just means that as in English, I suggest you to check with an English dictionary. Also this is not a game about who is ahead or behind but an intellectual disscusion about the truth.

Pretty much all we have here are assumptions. And you not seeking the truth has nothing to do with using certain assumptions as the basis of debate. It has everything to do with you arguing for nothing. You bring absolutely nothing to the table. You have made no arguments of your own but have spent (and wasted) all your energies trying desperately to pick apart mine. This is the sure sign of trolling.

I have merely questioned your assumptions, are you somehow beyond criticism? If I do not have some credible sources then I will not make such claims. Is picking apart your argument trolling?

My "mistaken logical"? LOL Look, if you had any legitimate criticism as part of the pursuit of truth, it would be taken like any other argument in a discussion, debatable and reasonable. As I said, you bring nothing here.

Questioning the validity of assumptions is certainly a part of truth seeking. If you dont understand that then you dont really care about the truth.

I made claims based on what I thought was reasonable. I don't have any backup nor did I claim to. Do you have any specs on the S-400? YEAH, I DIDN'T THINK SO. What do you have, may I ask? Neither backup or reason in the first place, so even less than I do.

Again you made claims not me, so who needs to backup the claims?

I gave you a solid example of a missile system in service for decades as a predecessor and analogue to the S-400 system so that you can understand what you clearly are still scattered about. No matter how you dishonestly twist my words to try and create an inconsistency, there was none to begin with. The problem lay with your understanding, not with my inconsistency.

Instead addressing the inconsistencies you try to change the topic, not once have you tried to honestly address my questions. All you have done is to take any constructive criticism against you and instead take it as somekind of personal insult.

 

[Jeff Head]

Certainly you are not trying to have an intellectual debate here.

I'm pretty sure it is now clear to everyone else here that you are not in fact here to intellectually discuss anything.

Uh...guys, based on the above exchange, at this point I would suggest you have both reached the same impasse.

You've both made your points over and over, and so maybe we could get the thread back on topic about the Type 054? Instead of going back and forth as to which of you is going to get the last word in.

Otherwise, I can almost here Popeye the Sailor, aka on SD as Darth Vader and his heavy breathing even now.

Just some friendly advise from a long time member who does not want to see this excellent thread filled with this, and ultimately closed down for awhile.