That seems like so ling ago now. I lost a lot of friends family saying this was an assassination attempt. Just another in a long line of crazy things that I had told them. Even though they'll never read this, it does make me feel a bit better seeing people come to realize that it was all true. I pray that this creeps it's way into the mainstream somehow. It would be nice to have at least some of my friends and family back.
Air Force 1 does not necessarily have a fighter escort
If a fighter escort is ordered, F-16s are 2 generations out of date for air superiority or intercept roles.
F22 and F35 have higher tech computers and get all the latest toys now. So this guy's assertion that it was an f16 shooting down missiles for AF 1 like that's standard protocol makes me think he wants to sound like a person with inside info, but doesnt know enough about the subject at hand to say the right thing.
Not that there was no shootdown that day but i just dont think this guy is automatically credible for inside scoops
All the armed services keep all of their frontline planes up to date on their avionics packages.
Avionics being radar, infra red, electronics warfare and the missile system itself.
This type of mission is all about avionics.
An F16, probably two in this case, protecting AF1 would have the latest avionics package. Over the last 30 or 40 years these F16 have probably had 5 to 10 upgrades on the avionics.
As of this year the F16s have had another major upgrade package.
**The latest and most advanced variant of the F-16 to date, the Block 70/72, completed its maiden flight earlier this year at Lockheed Martin’s Greenville facility in South Carolina. **
F-16 built 30 years ago probably has the same avionics capability as the most advanced F-22 and F-35.
If there was a shoot down of that missile by an F-16 IMHO it would be by EW (electronics warfare). Disabling the missile rather than shooting it down. This is what the Russians are doing to some of the Ukrainian missiles right now.
They do upgrade the systems on the older planes periodically but if you could make an f16 frame have f35 computers they wouldnt have needed to build the f35. It is actually not as manueverable as the f22 but its advanced systems give it the edge anyway. Neither the f16 nor f22 have the advancements of the f35.
I dont think, if I were Trump and I thought I needed an escort from point A to point B, that I would get f16s to do it. If anyone has any documentation proving f16s still are the primary AF1 escorts I will gladly retract my statement.
And before anyone says it could have been a ground-launched interceptor from Hawaii (not a presidential escort), Hawaii does not have F16s stationed there
Edit: one reason AF1 doesnt need a fighter escort is because it is rumored to have its own ECM package to evade or disable incoming missiles
Trump was going to Asia to meet with most of the leaders. It would make sense that the DS would choose that time to prevent him from presenting the plan.
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.
Of course, that much is clear. And that is not the topic under discussion. I am pointing to options. Take that and think laterally.
See, this is the matter that we all fail at oftentimes. This leads to underestimation by closed mindedness. "these people are stupid" does not mean they have no means to be viciously smart. Stupidity comes from underestimation by fixed mental positions.
If a Swedish diesel-electric can surface in the midst of a highly capable US fleet, what would you think a sub like the A212 is capable of in Puget Sound. At best, with such views, you are holding on to certain views, that may not be in line with reality and totally obsolete.
So, I am not saying: you are wrong. I am saying, I disagree with a fixed mental position. (repetition for emphasis)
We are witnessing a huge game where it can quack like a duck, walk like a duck, but, by necessity, may not be a duck. For all intends and purposes, it may have been a dud for exercise.
Apart from the technicalities. It reminds me of that moment where Trump said to Xi: I just ordered lopping 70 cruise missiles into Syria. Xi: ho li fook.
Seriousness. Strength projection. So, this may very well be a bigger and working red button - moment. A signal intended as a message to little Rocket man that he can perhaps shoot, but we shoot better and can totally eviscerate anything he can lop into the air.
As is established: it all depends on the goal and who is setting the goal.
I forgot to comment on the fancy of an A212 submarine entering Puget Sound. I would expect the Navy to have both passive and active sonar at the entrance to the Sound, and particularly at the entrance to Hood Canal. No submarine is invisible to active sonar. Any non-responsive intruder would be challenged and/or sunk.
Why shouldn't a submarine surface in "the midst of a highly capable U.S. fleet"? Does that mean it wasn't detected? No, not at all. We are not in the practice of conducting anti-submarine warfare against anyone else enjoying freedom of navigation. If some stranger joins my hiking party---but I knew of his approach---do I simply shoot him when he turns up? I think you are suffering from a "fixed mental position" in assuming its unintercepted appearance means it was undetected.
So, you have trouble with people who maintain that 2 + 2 = 4? That's not much of an argument. You are confusing being Open Minded with having an empty mind. Your objective is to keep an infeasible "option" open in the face of all the contrary evidence. For what conceivable purpose? Certainly not to get at the truth, because you find the facts offensive to your hypothesis.
So, you have trouble with people who maintain that 2+ 2 =4. That is not much of an argument.
Come one, DRD. You can do a billion times better than that. your: So-statement exemplifies what I said: closed mindedness leads to underestimation.
Your second mistake is that, because there is an appearance and you can draw inferences, that somehow equals to something like mathematical assurance, when it is only your perception playing a game on you, leading you into opinion, yet you fail to see it.
Your third mistake is: "Certainly not to get at the truth". So certain you are? It is actually a call to authority. Your own. And hence, a logical fallacy.
Fourth mistake: Truth: I refer you to the bible-forum. there seems to be a nice Pilatian discussion on truth. .
Fifth mistake: then what is my hypothesis? There is none. So, actually, I admit to being wrong. Closed mindedness, I stated, leads to under estimation. That is wrong. At least partly. It also leads to overestimation.
So, you've opened my mind to who you really are. Thanks, mate!
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.
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
Maybe the "special package" Q referred to was the missile launched from a sub. Up til this point i assumed he meant the intercept was the "special package"
I'm never certain. Even when you are pretty confident, an argument can always be made that one of the statements apply to something else. Ambiguous messages are intriguing, but I guess that is the whole point, leaving clues and the curious follow the trail. Make a statement of fact and most people just shrug their shoulders and say, "oh yeah, where's the proof?"
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.
Thanks for that, interesting. The article mentions short and medium range missiles, could they shoot down a 747 flying at 35,000 foot? I am not too sure they could.
You are welcome. Many surface to air missiles fire in that range. Larger versions on US Destroyers can even shoot down satellites. Which the Navy has done to destroy malfunctioning satellites or ones that were at risk of falling on populated areas.
That seems like so ling ago now. I lost a lot of friends family saying this was an assassination attempt. Just another in a long line of crazy things that I had told them. Even though they'll never read this, it does make me feel a bit better seeing people come to realize that it was all true. I pray that this creeps it's way into the mainstream somehow. It would be nice to have at least some of my friends and family back.
Looks like Brennan's email was sent nine minutes before the missile shot.
Oh yes, that "search & rescue" spotlight mounted on an invisible helicopter hit all our local "news". Any idiot could see what it was.
Exactly. Thank you
explaining this kind of thing to normies is so much easier by just saying the swamp is composed of a bunch of bond villains.
F22 and F35 have higher tech computers and get all the latest toys now. So this guy's assertion that it was an f16 shooting down missiles for AF 1 like that's standard protocol makes me think he wants to sound like a person with inside info, but doesnt know enough about the subject at hand to say the right thing. Not that there was no shootdown that day but i just dont think this guy is automatically credible for inside scoops
All the armed services keep all of their frontline planes up to date on their avionics packages.
Avionics being radar, infra red, electronics warfare and the missile system itself. This type of mission is all about avionics.
An F16, probably two in this case, protecting AF1 would have the latest avionics package. Over the last 30 or 40 years these F16 have probably had 5 to 10 upgrades on the avionics.
As of this year the F16s have had another major upgrade package.
**The latest and most advanced variant of the F-16 to date, the Block 70/72, completed its maiden flight earlier this year at Lockheed Martin’s Greenville facility in South Carolina. **
https://www.key.aero/article/f-16-block-7072-all-you-need-know-about-most-advanced-viper-date.
F-16 built 30 years ago probably has the same avionics capability as the most advanced F-22 and F-35.
If there was a shoot down of that missile by an F-16 IMHO it would be by EW (electronics warfare). Disabling the missile rather than shooting it down. This is what the Russians are doing to some of the Ukrainian missiles right now.
They do upgrade the systems on the older planes periodically but if you could make an f16 frame have f35 computers they wouldnt have needed to build the f35. It is actually not as manueverable as the f22 but its advanced systems give it the edge anyway. Neither the f16 nor f22 have the advancements of the f35.
I dont think, if I were Trump and I thought I needed an escort from point A to point B, that I would get f16s to do it. If anyone has any documentation proving f16s still are the primary AF1 escorts I will gladly retract my statement.
And before anyone says it could have been a ground-launched interceptor from Hawaii (not a presidential escort), Hawaii does not have F16s stationed there
Edit: one reason AF1 doesnt need a fighter escort is because it is rumored to have its own ECM package to evade or disable incoming missiles
Trump was going to Asia to meet with most of the leaders. It would make sense that the DS would choose that time to prevent him from presenting the plan.
This was posted last month and is relevant to this event. https://greatawakening.win/p/16bihsvZnN/dug-up-out-of-the-memory-hole-ep/
Theory is that the Island was another like Epsteins owned by elites. The claim is Trump cleaned out this Island after returned to the US.
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.
Of course, that much is clear. And that is not the topic under discussion. I am pointing to options. Take that and think laterally.
See, this is the matter that we all fail at oftentimes. This leads to underestimation by closed mindedness. "these people are stupid" does not mean they have no means to be viciously smart. Stupidity comes from underestimation by fixed mental positions.
If a Swedish diesel-electric can surface in the midst of a highly capable US fleet, what would you think a sub like the A212 is capable of in Puget Sound. At best, with such views, you are holding on to certain views, that may not be in line with reality and totally obsolete.
So, I am not saying: you are wrong. I am saying, I disagree with a fixed mental position. (repetition for emphasis)
We are witnessing a huge game where it can quack like a duck, walk like a duck, but, by necessity, may not be a duck. For all intends and purposes, it may have been a dud for exercise.
Apart from the technicalities. It reminds me of that moment where Trump said to Xi: I just ordered lopping 70 cruise missiles into Syria. Xi: ho li fook.
Seriousness. Strength projection. So, this may very well be a bigger and working red button - moment. A signal intended as a message to little Rocket man that he can perhaps shoot, but we shoot better and can totally eviscerate anything he can lop into the air.
As is established: it all depends on the goal and who is setting the goal.
I forgot to comment on the fancy of an A212 submarine entering Puget Sound. I would expect the Navy to have both passive and active sonar at the entrance to the Sound, and particularly at the entrance to Hood Canal. No submarine is invisible to active sonar. Any non-responsive intruder would be challenged and/or sunk.
Why shouldn't a submarine surface in "the midst of a highly capable U.S. fleet"? Does that mean it wasn't detected? No, not at all. We are not in the practice of conducting anti-submarine warfare against anyone else enjoying freedom of navigation. If some stranger joins my hiking party---but I knew of his approach---do I simply shoot him when he turns up? I think you are suffering from a "fixed mental position" in assuming its unintercepted appearance means it was undetected.
So, you have trouble with people who maintain that 2 + 2 = 4? That's not much of an argument. You are confusing being Open Minded with having an empty mind. Your objective is to keep an infeasible "option" open in the face of all the contrary evidence. For what conceivable purpose? Certainly not to get at the truth, because you find the facts offensive to your hypothesis.
Come one, DRD. You can do a billion times better than that. your: So-statement exemplifies what I said: closed mindedness leads to underestimation.
Your second mistake is that, because there is an appearance and you can draw inferences, that somehow equals to something like mathematical assurance, when it is only your perception playing a game on you, leading you into opinion, yet you fail to see it.
Your third mistake is: "Certainly not to get at the truth". So certain you are? It is actually a call to authority. Your own. And hence, a logical fallacy.
Fourth mistake: Truth: I refer you to the bible-forum. there seems to be a nice Pilatian discussion on truth. .
Fifth mistake: then what is my hypothesis? There is none. So, actually, I admit to being wrong. Closed mindedness, I stated, leads to under estimation. That is wrong. At least partly. It also leads to overestimation.
So, you've opened my mind to who you really are. Thanks, mate!
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.
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
Maybe the "special package" Q referred to was the missile launched from a sub. Up til this point i assumed he meant the intercept was the "special package"
I'm never certain. Even when you are pretty confident, an argument can always be made that one of the statements apply to something else. Ambiguous messages are intriguing, but I guess that is the whole point, leaving clues and the curious follow the trail. Make a statement of fact and most people just shrug their shoulders and say, "oh yeah, where's the proof?"
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.
Do boats have SAM's on board? I can't see they would fire an ICBM at an aircraft.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/6894/have-submarine-launched-anti-aircraft-missiles-finally-come-of-age
Thanks for that, interesting. The article mentions short and medium range missiles, could they shoot down a 747 flying at 35,000 foot? I am not too sure they could.
You are welcome. Many surface to air missiles fire in that range. Larger versions on US Destroyers can even shoot down satellites. Which the Navy has done to destroy malfunctioning satellites or ones that were at risk of falling on populated areas.
https://youtu.be/IY0EUs_8Ubo the response Q400 stolen with acrobatic skill