Nope. The missile (if that's what it was) has all the appearance of a Trident II D5 SLBM, launched only from an SSBN submarine. The launch location was in Puget Sound, not far from the Keyport submarine base and the azimuth of the view was due North. There is no possibility this could have been directed at AF1. (1) These things cannot be targeted at moving objects; they are only targeted at fixed targets. (2) In order to shoot toward Korea, the azimuth would have had to have been west-northwest, not north. There is a disturbing possibility that this could have been a rogue shot at Russia, which is due north from Puget Sound. There could have been a combat air patrol (CAP) by an F-15 out of McChord AFB with an intercept missile for the purpose of exactly this: stifling a rogue launch. When Q mentioned the intercept with the existence of a "special package," he was undoubtedly revealing classified information.
Note field-test 2015 .....
Note: standard NATO 53cm tube.
What makes this weapon interesting, is that it can be fired without betraying the exact location of the sub. So, you may see a frame where the missile is emerging at Puget Sound, it does not mean that sub is right under it. which in a SSBN situation would be the case.
And, you need no SSBN, any small sub suffices. And it just so happens that Germany builts A212's where it is usually installed on. And Israel loves this shit.
At least, the option is there.
So, there in my view are two options if we suppose there was a missile aimed @ Potus AF1. Either by a process where a magazine is transported to a sub, or indeed, the sub in question was already equipped with this Weapon-system. Given the complexity I would find the first one to be unrealistic at this point.
On the other hand, as you said, DeathRayDesigner, it may have been an attempt to force an international situation. Due North, there is quite a lot of FF-country to ash ... Especially, considering that there were rumors of Chinese Bases in Canada?
It would probably at least put to a halt: USMCA to replace NAFTA. => currency flow.
You must be kidding. The missile described in the video would look nothing like what was photographed. For one thing, its propulsive exhaust could not come from the tail, as the tail is occupied by the wire spool for the control link. Nor are there any fuselage features in the image to correspond to the wing and fin deployments. There is also the greater probability that this anti-air missile would not even be photographable. Its body diameter is about half a meter, whereas the body diameter for a Trident II is about 2 meters. The solid propellant would be more likely a "smokeless" formulation, which is not luminous. The propellant system for an SLBM is a composite that burns aluminum, leading to the notorious highly luminous exhaust plume.
There is also no possibility such a missile could be fired from Puget Sound and target an airplane en route to Korea. The range requirement would be prohibitive by maybe two orders of magnitude. This was NOT a shot at Air Force One.
In this case, there is no question where the submarine would be. For anyone looking, an SLBM launch would be a total tipoff. Puget Sound is small and the inlet where this happened was small-er. The ONLY submarines that enter Puget Sound are SSBNs (I've been on one).
The missile described in the video would look nothing like what was photographed. For one thing, its propulsive exhaust could not come from the tail, as the tail is occupied by the wire spool for the control link. Nor are there any fuselage features in the image to correspond to the wing and fin deployments. There is also the greater probability that this anti-air missile would not even be photographable. Its body diameter is about half a meter, whereas the body diameter for a Trident II is about 2 meters. The solid propellant would be more likely a "smokeless" formulation, which is not luminous. The propellant system for an SLBM is a composite that burns aluminum, leading to the notorious highly luminous exhaust plume.
That may very well be the case. Maybe not. See my comment.
There is also no possibility such a missile could be fired from Puget Sound and target an airplane en route to Korea. The range requirement would be prohibitive by maybe two orders of magnitude. This was NOT a shot at Air Force One.
I agree that is PROBABLY was not shot at AF1.
I maintain your dogmatism stands in the way of an open discussion, as your whole contention rests upon identification, and that may be off.
In this case, there is no question where the submarine would be. For anyone looking, an SLBM launch would be a total tipoff. Puget Sound is small and the inlet where this happened was small-er. The ONLY submarines that enter Puget Sound are SSBNs (I've been on one).
IF it was as you indicate, then yeah, as acknowledged.
You may be convinced in your own mind, so be it. Your mis-take already is, that it is something the American Navy carries by default. May be it is not.
What do you think you have? I live near the Keyport SSBN base where the photo was taken. No other submarines operate in Puget Sound. The anti-aircraft missiles are wire-guided and their range is limited to tens of kilometers at best, against targets that the submarine can detect. They also have an aft end that is occupied by a wire spool, not a major booster rocket. The photo shows no wings or other external features of an anti-aircraft missile. You don't have anything but empty supposition, because the photo does not support the anti-aircraft missile hypothesis, nor the geography. You take refuge in my potential fallibility, but you have nothing to say against it.
What do you know about anti-aircraft missiles? I was involved in producing them (US ROLAND propulsion unit). I rather think I know what I am talking about.
And none of them can travel the thousands of miles from Puget Sound to the north Pacific Ocean. See my response to "redtoe-skipper." You overlook the geography of what is going on. (Even according to this example, the shooting submarine needs to have some detection of the target. A blind shot is impossible.)
Good point. I don't have a globe (need to get one) and had to mentally estimate the flight path. It would make no difference. The missile (if that is what it was) would have been a Trident II and they are not anti-aircraft interceptors.
Well, that's the leading narrative. From my eye, it closely resembled a Trident II SLBM in early boosting flight. I've read the debunking account where it was supposed to be the ventral navigation light on an overhead-passing helicopter, but I found that to be nearly as improbable an explanation. And Q was passing this along as the real thing, so that was an eye-opener for me. I am still surprised that everyone here took it without batting an eye...just a prompt for caustic remarks at the same gallery of hoodlums. That would have put us closer to World War III than anything going on in the Ukraine.
But I guess we will have to see if the future proves the past.
Good point, i was wondering if anyone would cover this. Submarines are not equipped with surface-to-air missiles. If it came from a sub it would be a cruise missile or ICBM
Actually, this has been an area of interest for many of the world sub fleets. SLAM (submarine launched anti-aircraft missiles) is a reality and has been successfully tested in numerous different Navies around the world. There was even development in the US during the mid-2000's, but it has gone dark after 2017. Development is assuredly still ongoing, but the details are probably all classified now.
It's not that you couldnt do it. SAM missiles are smaller than cruise missiles or ICBMs. It's because sams are a tactical weapon and subs are strategic vehicles. The timing you'd have to have to surface the sub and fire a missile at an airborne target is a completely unnecessary hassle... it'd be like developing an indoor-use umbrella
They don't have to surface. They can be launched in a vehicle from either the torpedo tube or the verticle launchers. They acquire the target actively after it breaks the surface
Nope. The missile (if that's what it was) has all the appearance of a Trident II D5 SLBM, launched only from an SSBN submarine. The launch location was in Puget Sound, not far from the Keyport submarine base and the azimuth of the view was due North. There is no possibility this could have been directed at AF1. (1) These things cannot be targeted at moving objects; they are only targeted at fixed targets. (2) In order to shoot toward Korea, the azimuth would have had to have been west-northwest, not north. There is a disturbing possibility that this could have been a rogue shot at Russia, which is due north from Puget Sound. There could have been a combat air patrol (CAP) by an F-15 out of McChord AFB with an intercept missile for the purpose of exactly this: stifling a rogue launch. When Q mentioned the intercept with the existence of a "special package," he was undoubtedly revealing classified information.
Sorry, but I have to disagree.
https://youtu.be/watch?v=9UvvHsQDyII
Note field-test 2015 .....
Note: standard NATO 53cm tube.
What makes this weapon interesting, is that it can be fired without betraying the exact location of the sub. So, you may see a frame where the missile is emerging at Puget Sound, it does not mean that sub is right under it. which in a SSBN situation would be the case.
And, you need no SSBN, any small sub suffices. And it just so happens that Germany builts A212's where it is usually installed on. And Israel loves this shit.
At least, the option is there.
So, there in my view are two options if we suppose there was a missile aimed @ Potus AF1. Either by a process where a magazine is transported to a sub, or indeed, the sub in question was already equipped with this Weapon-system. Given the complexity I would find the first one to be unrealistic at this point.
On the other hand, as you said, DeathRayDesigner, it may have been an attempt to force an international situation. Due North, there is quite a lot of FF-country to ash ... Especially, considering that there were rumors of Chinese Bases in Canada?
It would probably at least put to a halt: USMCA to replace NAFTA. => currency flow.
You must be kidding. The missile described in the video would look nothing like what was photographed. For one thing, its propulsive exhaust could not come from the tail, as the tail is occupied by the wire spool for the control link. Nor are there any fuselage features in the image to correspond to the wing and fin deployments. There is also the greater probability that this anti-air missile would not even be photographable. Its body diameter is about half a meter, whereas the body diameter for a Trident II is about 2 meters. The solid propellant would be more likely a "smokeless" formulation, which is not luminous. The propellant system for an SLBM is a composite that burns aluminum, leading to the notorious highly luminous exhaust plume.
There is also no possibility such a missile could be fired from Puget Sound and target an airplane en route to Korea. The range requirement would be prohibitive by maybe two orders of magnitude. This was NOT a shot at Air Force One.
In this case, there is no question where the submarine would be. For anyone looking, an SLBM launch would be a total tipoff. Puget Sound is small and the inlet where this happened was small-er. The ONLY submarines that enter Puget Sound are SSBNs (I've been on one).
Qui mal y pense.....
That may very well be the case. Maybe not. See my comment.
I agree that is PROBABLY was not shot at AF1.
I maintain your dogmatism stands in the way of an open discussion, as your whole contention rests upon identification, and that may be off.
IF it was as you indicate, then yeah, as acknowledged.
You may be convinced in your own mind, so be it. Your mis-take already is, that it is something the American Navy carries by default. May be it is not.
What do you think you have? I live near the Keyport SSBN base where the photo was taken. No other submarines operate in Puget Sound. The anti-aircraft missiles are wire-guided and their range is limited to tens of kilometers at best, against targets that the submarine can detect. They also have an aft end that is occupied by a wire spool, not a major booster rocket. The photo shows no wings or other external features of an anti-aircraft missile. You don't have anything but empty supposition, because the photo does not support the anti-aircraft missile hypothesis, nor the geography. You take refuge in my potential fallibility, but you have nothing to say against it.
What do you know about anti-aircraft missiles? I was involved in producing them (US ROLAND propulsion unit). I rather think I know what I am talking about.
I have to disagree. Several militaries in the world have submarine-launched air missiles (SLAMs), including the US.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/6894/have-submarine-launched-anti-aircraft-missiles-finally-come-of-age
And none of them can travel the thousands of miles from Puget Sound to the north Pacific Ocean. See my response to "redtoe-skipper." You overlook the geography of what is going on. (Even according to this example, the shooting submarine needs to have some detection of the target. A blind shot is impossible.)
Do we have flight path data for that trip?
I know most commercial flights go over the Artic when heading to Japan, China, or Korea. But AF1 isn't commercial.
Good point. I don't have a globe (need to get one) and had to mentally estimate the flight path. It would make no difference. The missile (if that is what it was) would have been a Trident II and they are not anti-aircraft interceptors.
Missile?
But we were told that is a helicopter with a searchlight.
Well, that's the leading narrative. From my eye, it closely resembled a Trident II SLBM in early boosting flight. I've read the debunking account where it was supposed to be the ventral navigation light on an overhead-passing helicopter, but I found that to be nearly as improbable an explanation. And Q was passing this along as the real thing, so that was an eye-opener for me. I am still surprised that everyone here took it without batting an eye...just a prompt for caustic remarks at the same gallery of hoodlums. That would have put us closer to World War III than anything going on in the Ukraine.
But I guess we will have to see if the future proves the past.
Good point, i was wondering if anyone would cover this. Submarines are not equipped with surface-to-air missiles. If it came from a sub it would be a cruise missile or ICBM
Actually, this has been an area of interest for many of the world sub fleets. SLAM (submarine launched anti-aircraft missiles) is a reality and has been successfully tested in numerous different Navies around the world. There was even development in the US during the mid-2000's, but it has gone dark after 2017. Development is assuredly still ongoing, but the details are probably all classified now.
It's not that you couldnt do it. SAM missiles are smaller than cruise missiles or ICBMs. It's because sams are a tactical weapon and subs are strategic vehicles. The timing you'd have to have to surface the sub and fire a missile at an airborne target is a completely unnecessary hassle... it'd be like developing an indoor-use umbrella
They don't have to surface. They can be launched in a vehicle from either the torpedo tube or the verticle launchers. They acquire the target actively after it breaks the surface