Posted on 10/08/2015 10:28:08 PM PDT by sukhoi-30mki
Guess they were too damned busy retasking birds to spy on Home Grown Terrorists...
You know, like all of us here...
Bad Conservatives, bad bad...
Children, they need more than just a time out...
Did they violate the airspace of other countries?
OK, so the Rooskies can launch their version of Tomahawk from small ships.
I’ll bite. Why does the US need large ships? It isn’t the physics of launching the missile.
Maybe because the command and control infrastructure for the Tomahawk needs it, and Russia has offloaded that capability to other ships, and/or ground based stations, we aren’t seeing. Which has its own mix of virtues and drawbacks.
Are these the awesome missiles, some of which landed in Iraq instead of Syria? Good shootin tex!
I think it was Iran, but either way you make a great point. They didn’t launch hundreds.
for four to miss their targets in 2015, isn’t that kind of bad.
i dont know i dont know much about military hardware. just sounds like a large number out of 21.
“some of which landed in Iraq instead of Syria?”
Maybe that was intentional?
Last I checked, ISIS stood for Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.
Thanks for the correction, it was indeed Iran.
My bad, meant to type Iran.
I don’t think it has anything to do with the missiles; if you compare the sizes of various USN and Russian missiles (leaving out ballistic missiles), you will find the Russian ones are invariably heavier/bigger. With its reliance on satellite targeting, you can launch a modern cruise missile from any ship.
The difference in sizes is a question of naval orientation. The U.S. needs big ships since its primarily an expeditionary force, while the Russian navy has to worry about its immediate vicinity. The smallest major surface combatant class in the USN -the LCS- is almost twice the displacement of Russia’s new Project 20380 class corvettes, which can carry the Kalibr missile. The LCS’s current main anti-ship weapon is probably the Hellfire missile!.
The 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back.
“This was another demonstration of Russian weakness”, said our Community Organizer in Chief. “Did they destroy any hospitals? Our missiles can destroy hospitals.”
Might have been a targeting error, or in-flight malfunction, or even the U.S. or Israel testing an electronic countermeasures weapon.
I hope you're not under the impression every missile fired hits its target.
I remember (because I lived near Eglin, AFB) when we ended up with a Tomahawk landing in Alabama...
ISIS put pics online when one of our Tomahawks crashed last year.
For some reason that didn't make as much press.
Russians are going to use the opportunity we've fostered in Syria to test out new toys they've built. I'd expect 'teething' problems.
We have had that capability since the 1980’s.
Could it be the physics of large Pentagon budgets?
Depends what you want the ship to be able to do.
Is your ship going to sail from San Diego to Diego Garcia, or is it going to go in circles in the Caspian Sea?
We slapped 8 Harpoons on a friggin Pegasus. Tomahawk isn't so much larger that the same kind of thing couldn't be done, if it was built in the right Congressman's district...
These boats are floating in a land-locked lake with no St. Lawrence Seaway to get to blue water. And nothing nearby worth bombarding, barring a falling-out with the Ayatollahs.
So, it would seem their only logical purpose would be the current mission: to prove that the US is not the only nation with a cruise missile capability without having to overfly Turkey or join the crowd in the Mediterranean.
Let’s see China’s toys now.
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.