Well, obviously the meaning of my post went straight over your head. Guess the petulant tone should have been a clue.
The sheer height of idiocy and hypocrisy is when the pot calls the kettle black.
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?
I'm afraid you have dumbed it down too much, though I seriously doubt this was on purpose. If you are stating that ANY claim of similar shape = similar performance is wrong, then you are drinking special Kool-Aid. Two missiles can look close enough alike that it would become inevitable and REASONABLE to hypothesize that they are copies and have either identical or similar performances. And no, nobody will stupidly claim that any missile looks like any other missile. Well, actually you do. lol Given enough "deviation". I guess to you, given enough deviation, an HQ-9 looks like a PL-8. I guess if you want to close your eyes and click your heels together and keep whispering "enough deviation" to yourself enough times, those two missiles may start to look like each other. Be sure to drink your special punch to help you along with deviating.
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All you got is circular reasoning based on out of date info and old wives tales that is spun to fit the theory you already settled on instead of trying to see what is really is the case.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?
Who said the HQ-9 is the same technology "level" as the SA-11? And are you seriously that naive to think that "level" is a serious factor in missile design? Each missile is complex in its own way, and lessons learned from one missile design do NOT necessarily have immediate application to another missile design. Cost is another factor in missile design. Who the hell cares what the "level" of the HQ-9 is if the Chinese military wanted a tried and true SA-11 design they already had in their possession that could be copied on the cheap and turned into the HQ-16? This has been the historic pattern of the Chinese military for decades. If I have to list examples for you then you are not worth your salt in this discussion.
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?
Did I miss something? Are you actually agreeing with me that they have similar levels of performance? Did you finally see the light and reverse your foaming at the mouth denunciations of my opinion that they have similiar capabilities? Because I know someone like you is not going to claim the HQ-16 has LESS range than the SA-11. There are only three possibilities: 1) the HQ-16 has significantly inferior performance to the SA-11, 2) the HQ-16 has similar performance to the SA-11, and 3) the HQ-16 has significantly greater performance than the SA-11. Given your hyperbolic and senseless vitriolic attack on my original post, it is not by any means unclear what your personal view is, so don't try to stupidly play coy and talk about alternative realities here.
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.
Ah yes, great sensei of missile technology, I see. But one question master, how did you use "common sense" when you don't have any to begin with? Many aspects of missile design are proprietary, and despite the Chinese military being autocratic, business interests do play a part. Many aspects of missile design depend on non-military factors like cost, quality of manufacturer, and politics. Propellant technologies are not necessarily applied across the board to all missile types. The propellant design will reflect the missile design. A highly energetic but fast-burning propellant is not likely to be used on missiles intended for long range interceptions rather than point blank interceptions which require speed and high G turns. Flight algorithms are also not necessarily directly transferrable and depend on speed of the attacking missile, presumed speed of target, and type and quality of onboard sensors. These all vary across different missile designs. But hey, from a genius who gave us the epiphany that different missiles all look alike given enough deviation, I guess different flight algorithms, propellants and motivations for missile design are all alike if given enough deviation. No argument there, son.
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.
Ah yes, the hidden software, an argument which you can use to deviate the performance into any unknown nebulous entity that you see fit. But I was only being hyperbolic to expose the idiocy of this argument, namely that you can fantasize your little black box to contain anything you want in it, anything except the most obvious answer, that the box that looks EXACTLY like an Orekh copy actually IS an Orekh copy.
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.
Again, hyperbole being used to illustrate the other side's idiocy. And I still don't know what the hell you mean by "design", except for the definition gleaned from your own Disneyland dictionary. The lack of an ASROC and its associated fire control systems was a DESIGN consideration, not a lalaland haphazard slap-an-ASROC-on-a-ship nonsensity of a point. Similarly, the lack of AESA FCR's with multi-target engagement was a DESIGN consideration, specifically cost and complexity. All these can be added later, but all of these are still design considerations. If you still don't have the first damn clue what design means, go ahead and bang your head against the wall for a few hours to see if it will come to you.
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.
It would be retarded to base design procurement on the wet dreams of netizens, I agree. Good thing that's not the case, nor is anyone stating it is. But you want to know what? It is even more retarded (if such a thing were possible) to stupidly claim that the statement of a 'mass recognition of the relative performance of the 054A compared to other modern ships' is somehow equivalent to a statement that 'a PLAN ship designer has an intention to turn internet recognition into action'. Now that would be REALLY retarded. I wonder who would claim something so stupid. On the other hand, if a ship designer sees the same things that netizens are seeing, that's a whole nother ballgame.....
4 DA80s would be feasible for a Class Slava equivalent if that's the plan.
