It seems like you think integrating a new weapon system into military computers is as easy as downloading Microsoft Office onto your PC. If that was the case, why can't the F-22 Raptor fire the AIM-9X when it can fire the AIM-9M? Why didn't the F-14 Tomcat ever get the capability to fire the AIM-120?
I mean those are just minor upgrades to existing capabilities, yet the cost of the software upgrades was just too great. Now you're talking about integrating an entirely new capability into the submarine's Combat Control System.
And if the AN/BSY-1 Combat Control System links to the Aegis electronic warfare and real-time C&C system, I'd guess that was the main point of the exercise - if it was an exercise.
Or do you think hundreds of witnesses were simply too stupid to properly identify a light rising in the night sky AS an actual light rising in the night sky, that ended up meeting the aircraft exactly at the moment the center fuel tank just happened to spontaneously explode?
I'm not arguing the point of whether or not it was a missile that shot down TWA 800. My argument was that it wasn't a submarine as our submarines do not have that capability.
You have given absolutely no compelling evidence that a submarine did this. By your own admission, even if they managed to install this above Top Secret missile on the submarine--which isn't so secret that they don't mind firing it during routine exercises--it still needs a surface ship to guide the missile. Why not just launch it from the surface ship in the first place? That technology exists.
Isn't that what these 'command and control' systems that are spread amongst a 'fleet of ships' do ?
I agree with you it probably wasn't a SUB that fired a missile and hit TWA800. But, that doesn't mean it isn't, or wasn't possible at the time.