Streaming video from UAVs has already been piped back to the SSGN under Giant Shadow, I think. Now if that level of bandwidth is not high enough for you, nothing is. Furthermore, once the missile is launched, the missile’s updates can come from offboard sources, no need for the SSGN to provide it.

Now is that piped under a buoy or into a periscope sensor?

Depending too much on offboard sensors has their own limitation and introduce their own failure points.

Lets assume in theory, you got an AWACS that is capable of guiding 32 missiles. Now if this is already handling 32 missiles from somewhere else like from two AEGIS destroyers, how can you launch your missiles then? Relying too much on a top heavy command and control scheme creates serious bottlenecks in the system.

You know that the USN hasn’t considered this? Do you really think China is the only one who doesn’t tell everybody everything? The USN sub service is among the most secretive of all the services.

LOL, if it needs a budget it won’t be that secretive. It would have to be brought to the Congress and the Senate. And it has to find supporters.

problems with that. If you want to intercept a target, you need, as a rule of the thumb, at least a 50% speed excess. Not only does the SSK not have a speed excess, it also doesn’t have the endurance to run at full speed for more than an hour or so.

That assumes if the target itself is running at full speed. Running with surface buoy, getting to launch missiles, means you won’t be traveling that quick. In fact you would be rather slow. You will also have predefined zones where the sub can fire its missiles.

A diesel sub does not have to intercept, it can come to the suspected areas and lay in wait. An SSGN is not going to be fast enough to out run a heavy torpedo.

Environmental conditions in the littorals make subs hard to acquire. Did you think such problems affect only the USN and not the PLAN? Especially when the PLAN has sensors that are probably at least a generation behind the US? Worse so is the fact that the Ohio was designed not to be found, and has been upgraded steadily.

And what makes you so confident that the PLAN has sensors a generation behind the US? Every sensor being built right now are all using the same level of COTS technology because you work with what is available.

The Ohio is upgraded steadily yes but there is only so far you can take the design, while improvements on sensors will go much faster and has no physical limits.

USN subs are all upgraded steadily throughout their lives. And PLAN SSKs use COTS technology?

Oh yes they do. Why you think they’re working with vacuum tubes?

Just how much data do you think needs to be transferred anyway? I think you are WAY over estimating it. It’s not like streaming video or something.

Against high speed aircraft, you seriously need high data transfer rates. For high bandwidth, you need high frequency, and that means shorter range between links. If you need to get that from a buoy, you will have serious multipathing issues from the water surface. High frequency and water reflections don’t mix very well.

The fact that the USN isn’t considering this idea, they know that its bizarre, will have its problems, even if its doable, it’s not cost effective.

And yes, an SSGN does not have enough speed to escape an SSK. The typical maximum speed of an SSGN is about 24kts. The Song is listed with a maximum submerged speed of 22kts and it does have passive low frequency flank sonars the kind that can help detect another sub from a distance. The SSGN is not going to be fast enough to evade a heavyweight YU-6 torpedo either. And seriously, the PLAN is also building a fleet of SSNs now.

And regardless, a rocket propelled missile is a ballistic missile. No matter the range, it will always be flying out of momentum and inertia after a few seconds. That will always have serious implications on its effective range against faster and more maneuverable targets.

You just figure that out did you? :rolleyes:

Guess you’ve never heard of the concept of a towed array.

And guess what? A towed array is a cable. You know what a cable is do you? And what does a towed array have to do with a SAM application? The planes are flying above, not flying underwater stoopid. What you need is a towed buoy with an aerial on the buoy. That’s still a cable attached to a sub, with all the movement restriction, attendant drag and wake noise that goes along with it.

Sounds like you have a bit of reading to do.

Yes because CEC has been around for so long. :rolleyes:

I guess you need to start really reading. There are real physical reasons why performing VLS underwater is limited to certain speeds (by golly the missiles will be colliding with the rush of the water from the side) and at certain depths (rocket booster is not infinite).

TVC can cost you a few extra hundred kilograms of weight and parasitic loss of thrust when vectored. It also adds another maintenance point and an additional potential failure point in the entire system. The advantages it enables so, must give it some serious consideration, but it is understandable if you want to do without it.

Neat I really don’t know. I know a few people who I can ask and check them out. Looks to me like an enlarged Amur.

While waiting for an answer my guess is either an alternative proposal to the Lada/Amur. Another is the sub model looks very much like the proposed P-550/P-650B/P-650E/P-750 class (its four variants of the same model). Can’t remember what this new sub is called.

That sounded like collision of satellites is a very likely thing – just launch them into the same orbit and they will more than likely collide in no time. In fact, the opposite is very true. Ever heard of an accidental collision of satellites in space?

They did not go in the same orbit and in fact the ASAT’s trajectory was transversal of the target. Meaning, it hit the target at the side of the direction the target is traveling, as the target suddenly ascended during the last arc of its orbit.

If the ASAT went into the same orbit as the target it would have been tracked. In fact, the FY was being tracked in the US because there was some foreknowledge that an ASAT might be taking place. It finished the last orbit alone, and when it came out from that hemisphere, it was already in pieces, and the calculation of its destruction based on the orbit of the debris
was that it took place at least 20km from the its last known orbital altitude. So the entire rise and collision of the ASAT took place without the vehicle making half an orbit.

The orbit of the satellite would have brought it over central to east China, but the ASAT rocket was launched at southwest China, and that means it has an intersecting path.

Actually, what the ISRO official meant was something similar to the Russian’s version of ASAT where a co-orbital killer vehicle is launched into the same orbit as the target satellite, and is then slowly guided by ground tracking station, into striking range of the target – a maneuver similar to spacecrafts docking. Destruction of the target would, in this case, rely on explosives charges rather than k.e. of the killer vehicle.

Its not a bad idea and but generally an orbital platform can also be preempted by a ground or air launched ASAT. Also the number of strikes would also be limited.

sealordlawrence and sferrin, as the boldened quote by ISRO official shows, the ASAT test was nothing different than launching a rocket into a predetermined orbit to avoid collisions with sats of other nations. Only in the Chinese case, the orbit was occupied, which led to collision.

Its definitely not a collision. In the last moment, the target satellite fired its rockets and moved up by 20km. That adds a potential 20x20x20, or 8000 square kilometers of space where the satellite could be not from its tracked position. The Chinese KKV is definitely self guided in order to effect this sort of interception, or you must have one hell of a real time tracking and command guidance system.

Just because there are better cameras does no mean everyone’s got them, or are even using them on max setting. There are plenty of people in new york or london or paris who have crappy digital cameras and worse photography skills never mind some random village in China.

LOL, this resolution is even worst than a crappy digital camera or even a celphone.

But it still does not equal zero, hence why you can’t rule it as fake on that alone. Its hardly a difficult concept to grasp.

No. The concept that seems to hard for you to grasp is that just because you think it has the slightest chance of happening, it did happen.

You are exaggerating this entire concept that it could happen just be remote chance, it did happen. Yes it could happen, but the odds are simply against it.

Depends on how far away the crash is from the nearest base. The further away, the longer it will take for the authorities to get there and the greater the window of opportunity for someone to take a picture.

The parachute brake is deployed. That means the plane would have landed already. How far could the plane go?

Have you ever seen farmland? Its not like the postcards with fat stalks of golden corn all over the fields all the time you know. Depending on what they are planting and when they planted it, it can look pretty barren most of the year. But something to note is that in China, if there is a bit of flat, open land that can be used for farming, then it will be, especially in rural parts. Its true a lot of that land may not be fully cultivated these days on account of many of the young moving to cities to get better jobs, but rocks and stones don’t just magically appear out of nowhere. The soild will still be the same.

Yes I have been to a farmland. I have been to farmlands in China too. And they don’t grow weed grass as a product.

Selective miopia, only seeing what you want to see.

Read your own advice. Prove that the claim that the poster of the original picture is wrong.

Lol, thanks for the chuckle. I was the very first person who spotted that the chute bay was open and pointed that out in my opening post. Also, there are J10 pictures out there that clearly shows the chute bay open without a parachute being deployed.

Which proves nothing except that the open parachute brake can be taken from a picture of a static J-10. In other words, the parachute brake is either PSed into the picture, or it can be deployed in a landing.

No, what you are suggesting is a logical falicy. How can you prove any picture to be real? You can’t. Does that mean that the J10 itself isn’t real because so far no one here has seen it with their own eyes?

Does that also mean the Loch Ness monster and Big Foot exists because there are pictures of them?

The fact remains that there is a picture, and it is up to those who say that it is fake to prove it.

There is also a picture and a movie footage of Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster.

And you do that with incontravertable evidence. Either by finding the signs of digital manipulation or finding the composit parts used to construct that image. The J8II rardome case is a perfect example of how one goes about it.

So we need to find hard evidence to disprove the picture and movie footage of Big Foot and the Loch Ness monster.

I have seen them all, and they are all inconclusive.

By your opinion?

Have you actually seen pictures of plane crashes?

Notice the huge crack on the rear fuselage? It might not be aligned if its in two seperate pieces.

The fin is still stuck the rear fuselage, and yet it is disaligned with the rear fuselage.

And you do?

What kind of twisted reasoning is that? Unless the person posting it can prove that he took it, then his claims are just that, claims. I can take any picture on the net and post it with some **** and bull story to go with it and what does that do to the original picture? Absolutely nothing.

No.

I find your reasoning very hypocritical.

Somehow you think the picture is true because you think it is true but the caption of the poster who posted is wrong because you think it is wrong. I think you need to prove that the caption of the poster is wrong because you did make a claim.

But if the story he posted looks and smells like bull, then I’m going to treat it as such. But just because the story is highly questionable is not excuse to paint the picture with the same brush.

How can the story not be questionable. He cited a base, which is Guilin, which is true that a new J-10 regiment is deployed there. So he had specifics. The story is only questionable because of your judgement.

So what are they doing in that picture then? Just went all that way to get that close to the wreck only to NOT look at it? You do realise that there is a difference between looking and rumaging right? :rolleyes:

No matter how you put it, there is a lack of interaction between the people and the object. Rummaging, sheer curiosity, concern is what you may expect.

What a laughably poor and transparent attempt to try and wish away something your can’t reconcile with.

Check your own story.

I have already explained it. Its you who has his fingers plugged firmly in his ear while chanting ‘inventing behavior’ so you don’t have to deal with it.

What would be unusual is if they were all looking at it all the time. If you gathered up a bunch of Chinese farmers and put them in front of a fully operational F22 or B2, some of them would still have turned their backs to chat with their mates after a while. There is only so much stimulation you can get from staring at an inaminte object.

And I have systematically taken your arguement to pieces and shown the fundermental flaws in your reasoning.

Well post the picture of the accident and lets compare them.

A lot of people are still calling the J10 a LAVI clone. So what? And don’t invert the burden of proof simply because you lack it. The fact remains that this picture is in front of use. That is real hard evidence, and its up to those who have issues with it to prove that it is a fake.

Unless you have a picture of another J10 crash to go by, or phones of the internals of the plane, you can’t know what the mangled plane should look like. Without that basic piece of knowledge, everything else you said is meaningless.

I’m laughing because you think thats funny. Maybe you want to come and join the rest of us in the real world for a change.

I do not beleive the caption because I saw the same problems you have and more about it. Everything about the number of farmers and lack of emergency services (both first pointed out by me) casts a lot of doubt on the claim that the crash was near an airbase. But as I have said before, that alone is no reason to also rubbish the picture, because that would be a baseless assumption, and making baseless assumptions would be the best way to make a fool out of yourself.

You a lawyer now? While I am not, I have studied law and I can assure you that what you are saying only ever happens in dramatisations.

Its especially funny you would use the courtroom case, because that is a perfect example of where every piece of evidence should be carefully examined by its own merit and not be influenced by circumstantial factors.

So when exactly and in which paralel universe was I supposed to have said all that? :rolleyes:

All I have said is that I cannot find any piece of damning evidence that would prove this picture to be a fake. Everything else was just to show you that the issues you have raised are easily explainable. You are the one desperately trying to reverse the burden of proof because you simply don’t have the evidence to support your theory. And the amount of emotion and determination you are showing in trying to rubbish this picture suggest to me there is a lot more then cold logic and intelectural curiosity driving your actions and judgements.

Only one thing is excpetion, and that is the plane not bursting into flames. But even that is not all that unusual considering that facts:
– The pilot flew the jet in in a controled approach designed to maximise the chances of the plane surviving.
– The pilot very likely took many other measures to minimise the risks, such as dumping fuel, shutting down non-essential electronics etc.
– The plane landing in farmland, which is soft and without stones to strike sparks from.
– Etc

Everything else on that list has been shamelessly twisted and exaggerated by you to make it look incredible, often even after I had pointed out the flaws in you doing so.

Yet more evidence of a vested interest in proving that picture to be fake. That motivation alone casts doubts over any conclussions you may draw from the evidence.

Like I said, you really don’t know how good the PSers are now.

Second, because of this, a simple picture cannot be taken as direct fact. You don’t have to prove a picture is false, already we have to basically assume the hypothetical certainty that the picture can be faked.

You claim you studied law. If you actually do, and if you also studied science by any chance, pictures are not taken as evidence unless they are incontravertible evidence of the picture’s own authenticity. In other words, there are background checking and there are certification, follow ups, cross references and in fact, the pictures themselves are deeply examined by experts before they are allowed as evidence.

A single picture of a J-10 would not have proved its existence. But hundreds of pictures did. many that are wide, distinct and clear enough for examination. There are satellite photos, witnesses and export document reports for the engines and such.

and the list goes on and on. One picture only suggests a direction and a suspicion, but it is not proof per se. How we proved the ZTZ-99G is true, the 094 is true, the 093 is true, the Yuan is true, etc,. All of it did not come from a single picture, but a follow on that includes multiple pictures, videos, multiple sources, satellite imagery, both Chinese and Western media reports, and defense publication reports. It is the collection and culmination of evidence. Even if we have one clear picture in high resolution. it is per se, not evidence at all because there is always the hypothetical certainty of fraud.

Furthermore you need to prove the claim of the poster is wrong. I find it very clumsy that somehow the picture is true but the poster is wrong. Yes it is possible he may be wrong, but it does not change the burden of proof that you have to prove him wrong. Just because there is probability of happening does not change the certainty of happening.

Even with those circumstances you described, there is always the high probability of fire because dumping fuel does not equate to a dry plane. There is always a bit of fuel around, plus oil for lubrication and hydraulics, plus plastics and rubber that will catch fire. The majority of severe crashes do end up having fire of some sort. Which brings up to another thing that is funny in the picture, is that is the lack of fire preventive measures that should have been applied to the plane. Because even if the plane did not go into fire, it should have been doused. Now that alone is not proof the picture is fake, but it adds to the list of suspicions that it is. And we do not have to prove that the picture is fake, by default it cannot be taken as evidence in the first place without any authentication. I only mentioned things that add to the suspicion behind the picture.