- Joined
- Dec 24, 2015
- Messages
- 6,510
- Likes
- 7,217
Do you have a link? to post in a french forum?Very useful slides containing gems of info.
Do you have a link? to post in a french forum?Very useful slides containing gems of info.
Click on lower left corner you will see shate button copy the link and shareDo you have a link? to post in a french forum?
Nope. Chimera and Phoenix are written by someone else and that same person did the simulation of F-16 vs Tejas vs LCH. Vivek Ahuja.This guy is amazing. He has written 2 books. Chimera and Phinix on Indo -Pak and Indo-China War. He had simulated F 16 Vs Tejas and Z10 Vs LCH in his study published under title Beta Coefficient.
Very nice presentation. Cool to see that Shaurya and Sagarika's quasi-ballistic" 750km range trajectory again. I'd imagine Pralay is the same? Or do they drop booster before and are not powered all through the trajectory?Very useful slides containing gems of info.
Counter value means larger warheads too! Interesting development.Very nice presentation. Cool to see that Shaurya and Sagarika's quasi-ballistic" 750km range trajectory again. I'd imagine Pralay is the same? Or do they drop booster before and are not powered all through the trajectory?
But the most weird part is slide 11:- It says "Stabilized deterrence against N3: China, Russia, USA"
Deterrence against USA? And in the presentation he mentions counter-value targets, not counter-force targets, meaning missile ranges that should target US mainland. Is this policy or just boffin-speak?
Probably from SLBM pov down the line against N3....Very nice presentation. Cool to see that Shaurya and Sagarika's quasi-ballistic" 750km range trajectory again. I'd imagine Pralay is the same? Or do they drop booster before and are not powered all through the trajectory?
But the most weird part is slide 11:- It says "Stabilized deterrence against N3: China, Russia, USA"
Deterrence against USA? And in the presentation he mentions counter-value targets, not counter-force targets, meaning missile ranges that should target US mainland. Is this policy or just boffin-speak?
In the same time the yield of our nuc was drastically reduced.No, on the contrast, the West reduce the QUANTITY of arsenal, but the improvement of QUALITY bring the threat of nuclear weapon to a whole new level. For example, before 1980s, US need 3 warheads for every Soviet Silo, but since CEP was narrowed less than 100m, they only need 2.
? Big doubt.More importantly, with the technological progress, the conventional weapon can produce the damage as same as nuclear weapons in some circumstances.
Yield of GBU-43/B MOAB is 11 ton . Russian foab 44 tons . yield of tactical nuclear weapons can range from under one kiloton to about 100 kiloton . strategic nuclear weapons can have a yield up to one thousand kilotons.? Big doubt.
Even in IEM a classical warhead is far from being as potent.
one thousand tons of TNT in a hand, 44 tons in another. Can't compete.Yield of GBU-43/B MOAB is 11 ton . Russian foab 44 tons . yield of tactical nuclear weapons can range from under one kiloton to about 100 kiloton . strategic nuclear weapons can have a yield up to one thousand kilotons.