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.
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.