No they don't. That's the most laughable generalization I've heard yet. They all look similar to you because you don't have the ability to distinguish between them. Yeah I'm sure an HQ-9 looks "pretty much like" a HQ-61, which looks just like a TY-90. An elephant looks pretty much like a human if you allow enough deviation. What a joke.
Well, obviously the meaning of my post went straight over your head. Guess the petulant tone should have been a clue.
To dumb my point down as much as I can, what I said was that it is ridiculous to claim one missile is a copy or is based on another simply because they look similar on the outside, because all missiles are just a cylinder with a pointed tip and control fins.
Going by the 'logic' that a missile is a copy of another just because they look alike on the outside and you can claim any missile is a clone of any other missile. Which is the road your line of 'reasoning' leads to, which is clearly nonsense. Is that simply enough for you?
This is true in some cases, though in the absence of evidence that China somehow leapfrogged the technology of the SA-11, even later iterations of this missile, I'm not going to assume that they did. China has a history of copying missile technology, and that fact stands without question. The fact that the HQ-16 very strongly resembles the SA-11 (and not even remotely like the SM-1/2) that the PLAN has had in its inventory for years makes the hypothesis that the HQ-16 was developed from the SA-11 much more credible than any you can provide.
So the HQ9 is in the same technology level as the SA11?
All you got is circular reasoning based on out of date info and old wives tales that is spun to fit the theory you already settled on instead of trying to see what is really is the case.
When was the last time China copied a foreign missile design? And what makes the Shtil so special that China would need to copy it now?
Not only that, your hypothesis that some how some way in some dreamland the HQ-16 has a much longer range than the SA-11 is much less credible than the hypothesis that these two missiles have similar ranges and capabilities.
You have either been at the magic mushrooms and have been hallucinating, or that is the most pathetic example of trying to put words in someone's mouth I have come across in a very long time.
In which alternative reality did I present this hypothesis?
Wow, what an incredibly naive statement. I see, so based on your logic, the fact that China has "mastered" the HQ9 "technology" means it now has the expertise to independently develop any and all missile technologies. Because they are now masters. And because all missiles look pretty much like each other if you allow enough deviation. Okay.
Its statements like this that makes me seriously wonder if you are old enough to be allowed to use the internet without parental supervision. If you are not, speak up now so we can all stop wasting our time with you.
For the clueless, here's a quick heads up. Many of the core technologies in missile design such as the engines, propellant mix, flight algorithms etc are all transferable to other similar missiles. And an improvement in any one of those fields could yield significant improvements in performance of the same missile airframe. Cases of these are everywhere, ranging from all the AMRAAM iterations to the example of the SM1 v SM2.
The fact that China has developed the HQ9 proves that they have mastered missile technology that is significantly more advanced then that use in the Shtil versions they had in stock. Thus there is very little point in trying to copy something when you already have much more modern tech at your disposal. Its plain common sense. The world might make a lot more sense if you tried using it.
That's a pretty funny statement. So if you see an exposed bolt a few cm lower on the Orekh than on the 054A illuminator, or maybe a paintjob that's slightly different colored, that must mean that the one on the 054A can achieve maybe double or triple the range of the Orekh. By the way, would you like to share the differences that you see between the Orekhs and the ones found on the 054A's?
I see, so an illuminator that looks just like the Orekh and is almost certainly copied from it, may in fact have a multi-targeting performance that the Orekh itself does not have. Yes maybe, but how do you know that the 054A illuminator cannot also fire photon torpedoes? You're making a skin deep assessment. You need to think bigger.
Yet more quoting from imaginary alternative realities I see. And once again I seemed to have pitched my point far too high for you to comprehend.
Maybe you would care to google 'sofware' and then try and understand what I meant in the section you just quoted. And then after you understood what I actually said, maybe you can read what you have just written and grasp how stupid it is to ask for me to point out the physical differences when I was talking about software programming.
Of course it can be added later. Death ray blasters could also be added later, but we are talking about what it has NOW.
What kind of retarded reasoning is that?
My point was your criticism of the 054A
design based on the lack of an ASROC weapon is baseless because an ASROC can be added to the ship's weapons fit later with minimal changes when it becomes available. And you bring in
death rays as a counter? The absurdity of this is truly staggering.
The very fact that many Chinese military netizens have been clamoring for a "054B" (probably even YOU have clamored for it) is an implicit recognition by these people of the fact that while the 054A is leaps and bounds above the capabilities of both the Jianghu and Luda classes, there is still something, perhaps much, to be desired compared to other modern navies' frontline ships.
I really struggle to think of a word other then 'retarded' to describe the suggestion that design procurement should be based on the wet dreams of netizens.
There are people out there with wet dreams about death rays. Guess everyone should just stop building anything until said death ray becomes available.
This stuff would be comedy gold if it weren't meant as serious points.
