Aircraft carriers are WW2 tech -- in modern warfare they're likely to be sitting ducks -- China has invested heavily in anti-carrier and carrier group weapon systems. And regardless, they're only useful for projecting power ... in the Straits of Taiwan or the South China Sea (the most likely areas of conflict) China doesn't need them.
Citation needed, China has lots of quality control problems . Plus doing military ops is not easy. China has stolen a lot of IP, but struggles to put it into manufacture
Glad to oblige:
www.newsweek.com
ThanksGlad to oblige:
Newsweek "US Official Reveals China Has 'World's Leading Hypersonic Arsenal'"
US official reveals China has "world's leading hypersonic arsenal"
U.S. bases in Japan are already within range of Chinese hypersonic missiles, and Beijing is investing heavily in global reach.
Bloomberg: "China Leads the World in Hypersonic Technology"
Military Watch: "Russia, China Lead the World in Hypersonic Air to Air Missile Technologies"
The Sun UK: "China takes lead in hypersonic arms race "
www.thecipherbrief.com
Goalpost moving noted. You asked for proof China leads on hypersonics. I gave it.
And China has *already* requisitioned 2,500 large civilian ships -- in addition to their own Navy -- to press into service in this expected invasion. Not only does China have by far the world's largest Navy, it also leads the world in container ships, each of which could carry two or three entire battalions of troops.
en.defence-ua.com
www.businessinsider.com
After Ukraine downed the first, they began claiming most everything they hit was a Khinzhal, similar to their "we killed 400 assassins sent for Zelensky" claims. There's been only one photo confirmed.
I appreciate your forbearance, so I'll only say this. Certainly increased CO2 has both bad effects and good. I've never denied it. But with literally tens of thousands of articles presenting only the bad side, what point is there in presenting that? The point is that the positive effects of a moderately higher CO2 level exist, and they almost certainly outweigh the negatives.
There is zero real documented public evidence that a Patriot system has shot down any of the Russian hypersonic missiles, beyond the claims and current war and media propaganda. If the Ukrainian air defense forces report that they have never intercepted an X-22/X-32 that is much slower (and without countermeasures or terminal maneuvers)...Thanks
Here's a more nuanced article
The Hypersonic Arms Race is Heating Up
The U.S. has entered the hypersonic arms race in earnest, but still lags behind both Russia and China, writes Walter Pincus.
Given The Patriot system can successfully shoot down proven Russian hypersonic missiles.
This made not be the best Patriot system - though imagine USA wanted to see if if could
As the article I posted, it's a more nuanced approach.
Also people like Putain underestimate, the resilience and brutality nations can suffer to continue fighting .
So a hypersonic missile taking out some vital stuff in Taiwan , is quite of irrelevant to whether China wins and the long term war
Plus Chinese always struck me as pragmatic. Like Russia should have just taken over the eastern gas fields and ore deposits, a much more easier and obtainable imperialistic goal
End of day Taiwan is extremely well protected by water. China would need to land millions of troops and establish beach heads take could be supplied 24/7 . No special commando ops of old to seize the local petrol stations will suffice
So it's all really mute . China cutting itself off from all exports to west for some small mountainous islands. they have already stuffed up HK and they were handed that
If you throw an object at orbital velocity FROM THE SURFACE, it will fail to reach orbit since the trajectory intersects the surface of earth (since it started there and has no acceleration of its own). You'd have to throw the object at orbital velocity from a point in space rather than the surface in order to achieve orbit. SpinLaunch is simply using an initial throw to get it MOST of the way to orbit, then the projectile has to undergo its own powered acceleration to circularize the orbit.No scientist that's ever studied astrodynamics said such a thing, certainly. Whomever stated this likely confused orbital velocity (~7.8 km/s) with earth's escape velocity of 11.1 km/s. Toss an object from the earth's surface with the first velocity and it'll enter LEO. Toss it with the latter velocity and it'll enter orbit around the sun. Toss it with a velocity > 600 km/s and it'll escape the sun's orbit entirely. (All figures excluding air resistance and a few other minor factors).
As I said, surface launch systems utilizing just this principle are *already* being tested. See:
Fun fact: launch eastward at the earth's equator and you get a free ~0.5 km/s in launch velocity. This is why the US chose a southern state for Cape Canaveral, and why Russia built its first launch facility in Kazakhstan, rather than its own borders.
a correction. back then there were no "Russian borders". Kazakhstan was part of the Soviet Union, which was the only relevant border. What you say is as if the District of Columbia were to put its space ports in Florida or California, "outside its borders."No scientist that's ever studied astrodynamics said such a thing, certainly. Whomever stated this likely confused orbital velocity (~7.8 km/s) with earth's escape velocity of 11.1 km/s. Toss an object from the earth's surface with the first velocity and it'll enter LEO. Toss it with the latter velocity and it'll enter orbit around the sun. Toss it with a velocity > 600 km/s and it'll escape the sun's orbit entirely. (All figures excluding air resistance and a few other minor factors).
As I said, surface launch systems utilizing just this principle are *already* being tested. See:
Fun fact: launch eastward at the earth's equator and you get a free ~0.5 km/s in launch velocity. This is why the US chose a southern state for Cape Canaveral, and why Russia built its first launch facility in Kazakhstan, rather than its own borders.
I'm sorry. this isn't true at all. It's true that any orbit reachable directly from earth will be an elliptical orbit -- but it's still an orbit. Even most powered launches go through additional burns to circularize the orbit or to change other orbital parameters.
Only in theory. The USSR was nowhere near as homogenous a set of republics as the states of the US are. As just one example, the USSR had "internal passports" which could disallow you from crossing the border between Russia and Kazakhstan. I should know-- I had one.
Let's assume an object is thrown from earth's surface at orbital speeds at an inclination of around 10 degrees above the horizon. If you draw a line following the elliptical trajectory of the projectile, the line would enter space, circle around to the other side of earth, then come back down where it was originally thrown, assuming no air resistance (which would make it not even go that far).
And an equivalent apoapsis too (assuming minimum orbital velocity). Toss it harder, and you'll have an elliptical orbit with equivalent perigee but larger apogee.
No. In the case of a non-tangential "toss", the ellipsis intersects the earth's surface while trying to reach that original point from behind .... unless of course you're tall enough that the angle of inclination fails to intersect.
