Chinese cruise and anti-ship missiles

escobar

escobar

Brigadier
Bltizo said:
I'm more interested in knowing what the 98% figure means. Does that mean 98% = 19 capital ships identified (which would test the detection and holistic coverage of the system), or that they correctly identified the type of ship for 19 capital ships (which would test the identification and resolution/accuracy of the system)?
Click to expand...

it says: The practical application has shown that the accuracy of the automatic identification for the 19 large vessels has reached 98%.

And it doesn't mention the bases of actually datalinking with AShBM, but I suppose having a robust area surveillance system is the most important step.
Click to expand...

it also says: PLA has finished setting up all the facilities and infrastructure allowing to integrate data from all Chinese communication, remote sensing and navigation sats and to do real-time processing in an intelligent way, retranscribe them and distribute them directly to the tactical devices in less than xx min
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I don't know if this was public before but a lot of pages from 2006 on the ASBM posted in this link. One of them says they were simulating a warhead with sub munitions to destroy aircraft on deck.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Remember to replace the asterisk with a "y" in the address.
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
AssassinsMace said:
I don't know if this was public before but a lot of pages from 2006 on the ASBM posted in this link. One of them says they were simulating a warhead with sub munitions to destroy aircraft on deck.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Remember to replace the asterisk with a "y" in the address.
Click to expand...

Those have been posted on this message board before, but I cannot find the thread now. What happened back then was that the naysayers kept on nay-saying, while unable to pull up one credible source to refute the solutions described in those papers.
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
Engineer said:
Those have been posted on this message board before, but I cannot find the thread now. What happened back then was that the naysayers kept on nay-saying, while unable to pull up one credible source to refute the solutions described in those papers.
Click to expand...

there is a big difference between a paper vs something actually implemented. in theory paper on fusion, railgun, emag weapon are all published long time ago, but in reality none is implemented. people publish paper all the time, but doesn't mean its implementable yet.
 
Blitzo

Blitzo

Lieutenant General
Staff member
Super Moderator
Registered Member
Yes but these papers are reporting the results of a real life test, so your argument doesn't quite hold water.

One may argue the tests they conducted were not realistic (though that depends on the details we have) or that the papers are BSing (which would be a rather extreme reaction).
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
Bltizo said:
Yes but these papers are reporting the results of a real life test, so your argument doesn't quite hold water.

One may argue the tests they conducted were not realistic (though that depends on the details we have) or that the papers are BSing (which would be a rather extreme reaction).
Click to expand...

could you link on the paper that report actual result? i only saw theoretical stuff
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
s002wjh said:
there is a big difference between a paper vs something actually implemented. in theory paper on fusion, railgun, emag weapon are all published long time ago, but in reality none is implemented. people publish paper all the time, but doesn't mean its implementable yet.
Click to expand...

It wasn't an issue of implementation. Those papers explained in details on how methods of detecting, tracking, and targeting carriers are possible despite naysayers claiming otherwise. As to implementation, we now know they have tested out their detection and tracking methods as early as 2007.
 
S

s002wjh

Junior Member
Engineer said:
It wasn't an issue of implementation. Those papers explained in details on how methods of detecting, tracking, and targeting carriers are possible despite naysayers claiming otherwise. As to implementation, we now know they have tested out their detection and tracking methods as early as 2007.
Click to expand...

like i said method of det/track etc these are all theory, its like i say, we can detect ship with SAR, sure, but how do you implment the algorithm on what chip, system integration etc. anyway ill read some those link see if its true
 
Engineer

Engineer

Major
s002wjh said:
like i said method of det/track etc these are all theory, its like i say, we can detect ship with SAR, sure, but how do you implment the algorithm on what chip, system integration etc. anyway ill read some those link see if its true
Click to expand...

Like I said, it wasn't an issue of implementation. Discussions back then didn't even get to implementation, because naysayers cannot accept that there can be methods to detect, track and target carriers. The papers show these methods are possible despite naysayers claiming otherwise.

As to implementation, we now know they have tested out their detection and tracking methods as early as 2007. The documents also said that a full scaled test was performed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top