Matrix Games Forums

Not too much intrigue in this one:

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society ... es-next-us

Additionally, for those who love to write:

http://cimsec.org/call-for-articles-sho ... tion/38544

ORIGINAL: Dysta

If Trump really tear the INF agreement, then he will give both Russia and China much more reasons to make better IRBMs in the future. What US will have in defense if it happens?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... _clipboard

China and Russia were already doing that before the US left the INF. China and Russian already went far past that boundary and were making "better" IRBM's while the US sat on its arse due to weak politicians. They didn't care then and they won't care now whether or not the INF existed.

Armed MQ-1 was a first violation of INF.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... rgets.html
9M96 tested against surface target?
9M100 actually in service?
Interesting.
K

HKG is ‘combat effective’, meaning PLA has openly and officially using the civilian airport in Hong Kong for military logistics after the HK-Macau-Zhuhai Bridge opening ceremony and Sino-Malaysia military drill.

I suggest to add Chek Lap Kok island layout in game for a full-size aircraft facilities.

https://3g.china.com/act/military/11132 ... 35250.html (Simplified Chinese)

ORIGINAL: KLAB

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.p ... rgets.html
9M96 tested against surface target?

According to the press service of Northern Fleet - yes.

ORIGINAL: Filitch

Armed MQ-1 was a first violation of INF.

I didn't know Hellfire's were SRBM/IRBM's [8|]

ORIGINAL: CrazyIvan101

ORIGINAL: Filitch

Armed MQ-1 was a first violation of INF.

I didn't know Hellfire's were SRBM/IRBM's [8|]

Before the Trump Adminstration, UAVs are classified as missiles in MTCR.

ORIGINAL: Dysta

Before the Trump Adminstration, UAVs are classified as missiles in MTCR.

Exactly!

ORIGINAL: INF Treaty
2. The term "cruise missile" means an unmanned, self-propelled vehicle that sustains flight through the use of aerodynamic lift over most of its flight path. The term "ground-launched cruise missile (GLCM)" means a ground-launched cruise missile that is a weapon-delivery vehicle.

No surprise about where the Syrian S-300 was going to end up for now:

https://twitter.com/imagesatint/status/ ... 9952106496

How silly .. missiles in any interpretation of these treaties were never thought to be weapons that routinely return to their home base and be reusable after discharging their warheads separately from their main body. Armed UAVs are remotely piloted strike aircraft. One way missiles are not reusable UAVs. Reusable armed UAVs are not covered under the agreements in question. They are not missiles since they can return to base. Missiles can not. They are one way.

Kevin

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

How silly .. missiles in any interpretation of these treaties were never thought to be weapons that routinely return to their home base and be reusable after discharging their warheads separately from their main body. Armed UAVs are remotely piloted strike aircraft. One way missiles are not reusable UAVs. Reusable armed UAVs are not covered under the agreements in question. They are not missiles since they can return to base. Missiles can not. They are one way.

Kevin

It's not silly. Please read text of treaty. Popular definitions like 'that routinely return to their home base and be reusable' dont't refer to treaty definitions. And if you reflect on cruise missiles like BGM-190, Kh-101, Kh-55 and others, you understand that are really UAVs.

So Mr. Arms Control lawyer, tell us how the US Reaper or any armed UAV from any country is covered under the missile treaty in question. They are not. UAVs are not missiles by definition. Missiles are one way ... UAVs are not. Don't you get it? It's like comparing a Baboon to Putin ... Oh darn ... maybe that's too accurate of a comparison. LOL.

US defenders got new low. A samurai would have said that they have lost their face.

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

So Mr. Arms Control lawyer, tell us how the US Reaper or any armed UAV from any country is covered under the missile treaty in question. They are not. UAVs are not missiles by definition. Missiles are one way ... UAVs are not. Don't you get it? It's like comparing a Baboon to Putin ... Oh darn ... maybe that's too accurate of a comparison. LOL.

I will not dispute and teach you. If you has no ability to read and undestand, it does make sense for you to go to elementary school. Until then don't jump into a adult conversation.

Armed reusable UAVs/drones are here to stay whether we like it or not. Maybe the world would have been better off if they were banned in 1987. But they were not. Please take a look at pages 26-27 from a report issued Oct. 5 by Amy Woolf, an expert in the field:

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R43832.pdf

"Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense Brian McKeon summed this up during recent congressional testimony when he noted that drones are not missiles, they are “two-way, reusable systems. The INF Treaty imposes no restrictions on the testing, production, or possession of two-way, reusable, armed UAVs."

Common sense prevails.

Kevin

US warship shoots down missile in space in spectacular interceptor test
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/us-warship ... eptor-test

From now on, CNS Lanzhou will ensure the US and allies’ Free-O-Nav will not be a happy business:

http://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/AJ ... 60037.html

ORIGINAL: Dysta

From now on, CNS Lanzhou will ensure the US and allies’ Free-O-Nav will not be a happy business:

http://www.asahi.com/sp/ajw/articles/AJ ... 60037.html

Really dumb how it is always the JMSDF or USN that is coming out with shots like this. It should be the PLAN and China's MOD's role to publish photos of their interceptions.

A new submarine built by the Jiangnan Shipyard.

Interesting small blended sail design.

https://twitter.com/dafengcao/status/10 ... 5443123201