[nevergiveup]

"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.

[gcruse]

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.

[WOSG]

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.

[paul51]

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

And the alternative defensive strategy would be ?

[Jeff Head]

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.

Not when the platform you are defending costs many tens of thousands times the cost of both.