今天的出鞘又吓死我了。。。。。

也许它们也会在发射架上沉默很久，但没人敢无视这种沉默
yankee的语文真是越来越好了

你也知道是pac3用kkv而不是pac2啊？
那为何不理解是hq19用kkv而不是hq9？

另外hq9跟hq19不是取代关系，而是类似于美国海军的标准2跟标准3

另外hq9跟hq19不是取代关系，而是类似于美国海军的标准2跟标准3

KKV比不上美帝吧，，，

这消息已经很老了

（《中国国防报》  2000-11-29）

去年反导那事是美国国防部本月24日新闻发布会上先提起的，这点本期出鞘似乎没搞清楚。

剑起沧澜 发表于 2015-3-27 21:01
另外hq9跟hq19不是取代关系，而是类似于美国海军的标准2跟标准3
不是取代关系，但也类似不了标2和标3。。一个陆基一个海基。

果壳军事 发表于 2015-3-27 23:33
去年反导那事是美国国防部本月24日新闻发布会上先提起的，这点本期出鞘似乎没搞清楚。
美方为什么时隔10个月后才重提此事

ADMIRAL CECIL HANEY: For 70 years, we have deterred and assured. And while our nation's nuclear enterprise is safe, secure and effective, we cannot take it for granted any longer. For decades, we have sustained while others have modernized their strategic nuclear forces, developing and utilizing counterspace activities, increasing the sophistication and pervasive nature of their cyber capabilities and proliferating these emerging strategic capabilities around the globe.

You all know Russia is modernizing both their nuclear triad and associated industrial base, and President Putin continues his provocative actions, such as demonstrating nuclear capabilities during the Ukraine crisis, penetrating U.S. and allied air defense identification zones with long-range strategic aircraft flights and violating the INF treaty.

And Russia is not alone. China has developed a capable submarine and intercontinental ballistic missile force, and has recently demonstrated their counterspace capabilities. North Korea claims to have possession of a miniaturized warhead and frequently parades their KN-O8 nuclear-capable ballistic missile. And Iran recently launched a space vehicle that could be used as a long-range strike platform.

...

Q: Admiral Phil Ewing with Politico. On your comments about the threat to space and the threat in space, how urgent is that? Is that something that's right around the corner? Is it five years down the line? And is the United States doing enough to prepare to defend military and civilian spacecraft against these potential dangers?

ADM. HANEY: The threat in space, I fundamentally believe, is a real one. It's been demonstrated. First, in 2007 as we watch, quite frankly, with astonishment, as the Chinese launched their Anti-Satellite kill vehicle up in space and created just thousands and thousands of pieces of debris that we are confronted with even today.

They've repeated this kind of test in -- last summer. And during that test, fortunately, they did not do a hit-to-kill kind of thing. And as a result, that's good, because we didn't end up with more debris. But as a result, you know, there's a debris problem up there. But just seeing the nature of these types of activities show how committed they are to a counter-space campaign. So we have to be ready for any campaign that extends its way into space.

...

Q: You said that last summer's Chinese anti-satellite test was not a hit to kill. So, what was it? Can you -- can you describe that test a little more and why you're concerned about it?

ADM. HANEY: First, for space, in -- I think it was July of 2014, was -- where the Chinese launched a similar test that they had with a anti-satellite missile in space that they did in 2007. The only difference this time, it did not impact another satellite. I'm not convinced that was their intention. But quite frankly, just the whole physics and the demonstration and everything that they did, I'm sure they collected data, and what have you, in order to further make this an operational capability.

Q: I'm sorry. Could -- you're not sure they intended not to hit something or you -- are you saying you think they might have been trying to hit something and didn't?

ADM. HANEY: I'm saying -- I'll give you the facts. They didn't hit anything. But quite frankly, that does not mean that that was a failed test. What I'm saying is that it could likely be what they intended to do, while gathering data associated with their tests at large, in terms of things.

Q: The 2007 test was against satellite in Low Earth Orbit. Was this test --

ADM. HANEY: This was also a test for capability in Low Earth Orbit.

http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5605

金雕008 发表于 2015-3-28 00:06
美方为什么时隔10个月后才重提此事

ADMIRAL CECIL HANEY: For 70 years, we have deterred and assured. And while our nation's nuclear enterprise is safe, secure and effective, we cannot take it for granted any longer. For decades, we have sustained while others have modernized their strategic nuclear forces, developing and utilizing counterspace activities, increasing the sophistication and pervasive nature of their cyber capabilities and proliferating these emerging strategic capabilities around the globe.

You all know Russia is modernizing both their nuclear triad and associated industrial base, and President Putin continues his provocative actions, such as demonstrating nuclear capabilities during the Ukraine crisis, penetrating U.S. and allied air defense identification zones with long-range strategic aircraft flights and violating the INF treaty.

And Russia is not alone. China has developed a capable submarine and intercontinental ballistic missile force, and has recently demonstrated their counterspace capabilities. North Korea claims to have possession of a miniaturized warhead and frequently parades their KN-O8 nuclear-capable ballistic missile. And Iran recently launched a space vehicle that could be used as a long-range strike platform.

...

Q: Admiral Phil Ewing with Politico. On your comments about the threat to space and the threat in space, how urgent is that? Is that something that's right around the corner? Is it five years down the line? And is the United States doing enough to prepare to defend military and civilian spacecraft against these potential dangers?

ADM. HANEY: The threat in space, I fundamentally believe, is a real one. It's been demonstrated. First, in 2007 as we watch, quite frankly, with astonishment, as the Chinese launched their Anti-Satellite kill vehicle up in space and created just thousands and thousands of pieces of debris that we are confronted with even today.

They've repeated this kind of test in -- last summer. And during that test, fortunately, they did not do a hit-to-kill kind of thing. And as a result, that's good, because we didn't end up with more debris. But as a result, you know, there's a debris problem up there. But just seeing the nature of these types of activities show how committed they are to a counter-space campaign. So we have to be ready for any campaign that extends its way into space.

...

Q: You said that last summer's Chinese anti-satellite test was not a hit to kill. So, what was it? Can you -- can you describe that test a little more and why you're concerned about it?

ADM. HANEY: First, for space, in -- I think it was July of 2014, was -- where the Chinese launched a similar test that they had with a anti-satellite missile in space that they did in 2007. The only difference this time, it did not impact another satellite. I'm not convinced that was their intention. But quite frankly, just the whole physics and the demonstration and everything that they did, I'm sure they collected data, and what have you, in order to further make this an operational capability.

Q: I'm sorry. Could -- you're not sure they intended not to hit something or you -- are you saying you think they might have been trying to hit something and didn't?

ADM. HANEY: I'm saying -- I'll give you the facts. They didn't hit anything. But quite frankly, that does not mean that that was a failed test. What I'm saying is that it could likely be what they intended to do, while gathering data associated with their tests at large, in terms of things.

Q: The 2007 test was against satellite in Low Earth Orbit. Was this test --

ADM. HANEY: This was also a test for capability in Low Earth Orbit.

http://www.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=5605

实际上前一阵子介绍某东西时曾经提到我某型姿态控制发动机进行微调时可以从极低到某一高值，印象中低的概念也就是人用手推某东西动一点产生的力

实际上前一阵子介绍某东西时曾经提到我某型姿态控制发动机进行微调时可以从极低到某一高值，印象中低的概念也就是人用手推某东西动一点产生的力

不是取代关系，但也类似不了标2和标3。。一个陆基一个海基。
标准系列都是美国海军舰队主力防空导弹，美军的计划是在伯克上以一定比例混搭sm2跟sm3，其中sm2负责舰队防空，sm3负责海基弹道导弹防御……什么路基海基的，你弄错了吧？

剑起沧澜 发表于 2015-3-28 09:52
标准系列都是美国海军舰队主力防空导弹，美军的计划是在伯克上以一定比例混搭sm2跟sm3，其中sm2负责舰队 ...
我说的意思是，你前面的红9红19那是陆基的导弹，红19的作用也不同于标3。

果壳军事 发表于 2015-3-28 00:40
ADMIRAL CECIL HANEY: For 70 years, we have deterred and assured. And while our nation's nuclear  ...
感觉很有意思，其实这个发言人本意重点并不在去年夏天实验，而是强调中国在太空制造了碎片给所谓的“太空安全”带来了麻烦，其中提到了去年的实验“没有击中任何目标”-----结果，貌似记者对这次实验的细节比所谓的“太空安全”更感兴趣~
话说回来，其实2007年那次，中国做的确实欠考虑。在800多公里的高轨道，把卫星打个稀巴烂，几千个碎片在天上还不知道要漂多少年

我是小小号 发表于 2015-3-28 10:16
感觉很有意思，其实这个发言人本意重点并不在去年夏天实验，而是强调中国在太空制造了碎片给所谓的“太空 ...
为啥说欠考虑，肯定是深思熟虑过的

为啥说欠考虑，肯定是深思熟虑过的
CCTV报道绵阳风洞的时候说拿弹道靶模拟过这个试验，超高速撞击只会产生细碎的碎片，几个月就再入了。不知实际情况如何。

果壳军事 发表于 2015-3-28 00:40
ADMIRAL CECIL HANEY: For 70 years, we have deterred and assured. And while our nation's nuclear  ...
如果详细对比去年国防部的发言,今年美方的指责和国防部再次反驳是非常有意思的事情

我是小小号 发表于 2015-3-28 10:16
感觉很有意思，其实这个发言人本意重点并不在去年夏天实验，而是强调中国在太空制造了碎片给所谓的“太空 ...
2007年应该是伊核危机关键时候吧。