Skip to comments.
Russian "Sunburn" anti-ship missle threat neutralized...
Multiple
| 1stFreedom
Posted on 08/18/2003 8:20:55 PM PDT by 1stFreedom
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
To: 1stFreedom
Your tax dollars at work!
2
posted on
08/18/2003 8:25:25 PM PDT
by
glorgau
To: 1stFreedom
Excellent news and research. Thanks for posting.
3
posted on
08/18/2003 8:30:46 PM PDT
by
11B3
(Looking for a belt-fed, multi-barreled 12 guage. It's Liberal season, no daily limit.)
To: 1stFreedom
"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%" Wait, how can this be? Everyone knows a missile can't hit another missile. Don't tell the democrats.
And another thing, if its success rate is less than 100%, then its no good. We need to stop spending money on this right now.
To: 1stFreedom
If this neutralizes the Sunburn, what is it the Yakhont has that it is not neutralized as well?
5
posted on
08/18/2003 8:50:25 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: 1stFreedom
AAMOF, I remember Clinton turning down Russian offers to sell us some Sunburns for whatever use we wanted to make of them. I wonder how long that delayed this good news?
6
posted on
08/18/2003 8:51:35 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: 1stFreedom
Rolling Airframe Missile
7
posted on
08/18/2003 8:52:26 PM PDT
by
GATOR NAVY
(20 years in the Navy; never drunk on duty - never sober on liberty)
To: 1stFreedom
"With these test firings RAM demonstrated its unparalleled success against today's most challenging threats. Cumulatively to date more than 180 missiles have been fired against anti-ship missiles and other targets, achieving a success rate over 95%" Don't get me wrong, this is all well and good but now that the technological questions are solved the real question is one of relative costs. How much does the bad guy spend for his offensive missile verses how much we spend on our defensive missile(s!), and how much does the platform being protected cost(not all platforms cost as much as a carrier or sub)? After all if it cost us 10 times as much to shoot down one of theirs we are on the wrong side of the lever.
8
posted on
08/18/2003 8:56:07 PM PDT
by
nevergiveup
(We CAN do it!)
To: nevergiveup
It takes six Sunburns to take down a carrier. Divide the cost of a carrier by six to see how much it is worth to take down a Sunburn. By the way, Sunburns can use rapidly movable shore launchers. Enough of them in the wrong hands, and the Persian Gulf fleet is just so much scrap metal.
9
posted on
08/18/2003 9:01:08 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: 1stFreedom
10
posted on
08/18/2003 9:08:34 PM PDT
by
Bobibutu
To: gcruse
6 conventional? 1 nuke?
11
posted on
08/18/2003 9:13:06 PM PDT
by
Bobibutu
To: Bobibutu
No nukes. Conventional warheads. I don't know if they can be nuclear tipped or not.
12
posted on
08/18/2003 9:21:08 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
To: Toddsterpatriot
"And another thing, if its success rate is less than 100%, then its no good. We need to stop spending money on this right now."
Absolutely. And quit spending money on every other program without a 100% success rate, including the prescription drug benefit and Head Start.
hmmm, where'd that deficit go? :-)
13
posted on
08/18/2003 9:25:01 PM PDT
by
WOSG
To: nevergiveup
Um, so if an anti-theft device for your $30,000 car costs $100 and a coat hanger only costs 10 cents, the anti-theft device is not worthwhile???
Rejigger your mental model. It's what the missile *saves* that counts.
14
posted on
08/18/2003 9:27:06 PM PDT
by
WOSG
To: gcruse
IMO, all current supersonic anti-ship missles are neutralized by the SeaRAM.
To: 1stFreedom
Great news. Clinton knew this weapon was being developed by the Russians and didn't seem to give a damn.
16
posted on
08/18/2003 9:29:56 PM PDT
by
doug from upland
(Why did DemocRATS allow a perjuring rapist to remain in the Oval Office?)
To: gcruse
17
posted on
08/18/2003 9:41:39 PM PDT
by
Bobibutu
To: 1stFreedom
In order to destablize the power of the United States, the Russians have been selling the Sunburn missles to China. ==
Heh heh:)).. It is not true. Russia sells just for US DOLLARS. No US dollars in hands of China then no sells. Just a question. Who provided China US dollars?
It is good that US developed antidot for Sunburns. I was worry if China could repel american fleet. It is dangerous for Russia too. The dangerous disbalance of power.
18
posted on
08/18/2003 9:43:11 PM PDT
by
RusIvan
To: 1stFreedom
Ultimately, we may not be able to protect Taiwan, sitting as close as it is to China. A far better solution would be as follows:
Peter Schulz of Porsche once stated that the physical plant of Porsche could be burnt or bombed to dust and, if only his people survived with their skills, they'd be back building cars within a year and a half. That has to apply double for the people of Taiwan, who mostly build printed circuit boards and things requiring far less heavy tooling than building Porsches does.
The United States still owns any number of islands in the Pacific. The chicoms could be made to answer this question:
Are you claiming to own an island, or are you claiming to own the 25 million people who moved to Taiwan precisely because they did not wish to live under communist rule?
The US should have a plan to move the entire population of Taiwan along with as much of their productive capabilities as possible to some other island or US territory, several thousand miles from China. The Taiwanese would be back in business as usual within a year, and the chicoms would be DIH.
To: doug from upland
Clinton knew this weapon was being developed by the Russians and didn't seem to give a damn.
They were already developed. The Moskit (Sunburn) has been around maybe a decade.
The Russians offered to sell us some, but Clinton turned them down. This was around the
time of the aspirin factory dog wagging.
20
posted on
08/18/2003 9:46:44 PM PDT
by
gcruse
(http://gcruse.typepad.com/)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-75 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson