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!
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!