It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Russian cruise missile test goes wrong; hits apartment building

page: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: hutch622

They could have waited at least until they cleared the harbor before lighting it off...




posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 09:00 AM
link   
hey zaph.

I'm confused. Russia's cruise missiles locking and guidance systems are so bad they hit the wrong country (literally) sometimes let alone the wrong building.

but their air to air missiles have unbeatable guidance and locking systems that America, in spite of spending several times the money and research, can't match and are sh!ting in their pants over?


that's quite the disparity.


I ain't the smartest man in the world but some things not adding up.


I guess air to air missile guidance technology and cruise missile guidance technology are Apple's and oranges. not even in the same genus technology wise. I'm just surprised they can make unbeatable a to a missiles but God awful cruise missiles that are sub par for even 1980s standards.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Cruise missiles use GPS or its equivalent, or INS. Air to air missiles use radar and IR cameras.
edit on 12/16/2015 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

And GPS requires good satellite connections right?



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 11:06 AM
link   
1985 I watched a Sea Sparrow test. The missile went out of the launcher, about a mile down range, hung a u-turn, came back, just clearing the ship and exploded about two miles away.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Satellite connection and number of satellites. The more satellites you can ping the better the position data.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting so russian military having a hard time talking to their satellites. Things that make you go Hmmmmm?



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Why do you think the US launches such large salvos of Tomahawks? In pretty much every one we've launched in recent years a small number of them wander, or crash.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 01:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Damn Raytheon swears the Tomahawk is super reliable and very precise and accurate. The liars!



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

So is the 777. It happens.



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

So...... .....You're saying don't trust people from Boeing?



posted on Dec, 16 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
No, just that no technology is infallible. Cars are manufactured by the tens and hundreds of millions but parts still blow before their time and crazy unplanned issues do come up. Defects and human error are a part of the manufacturing game. I can't think of a single piece of military equipment in the world that has never, in all its time, failed horribly at least once in tests or practical use. Whether a grenade, gun, missile, musket, or sword, I'm sure they've all had moments of "...Damn it."

My question: Wouldn't these have a self-destruct for when they wander too far off, or is that only standard for ICBM's?
Amusingly, I wonder if it'd be worth it from a technical standpoint to always have an S-300/400 on hand. Cruise missile wanders off course? Free live-fire test for your ABM/AA system!
edit on 16-12-2015 by Ferros because: Expanding on original point



posted on Dec, 17 2015 @ 02:58 AM
link   
Seems like a huge failure to test this in an area where this could happen.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
hey zaph.

I'm confused. Russia's cruise missiles locking and guidance systems are so bad they hit the wrong country (literally) sometimes let alone the wrong building.

but their air to air missiles have unbeatable guidance and locking systems that America, in spite of spending several times the money and research, can't match and are sh!ting in their pants over?

that's quite the disparity.


Russia has been really good at anti-aircraft missiles for a long time. It's a history of facing USA, which has been really good at aircraft for a long time.

The UK Meteor missile probably matches the latest Russian missile.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

Interesting so russian military having a hard time talking to their satellites. Things that make you go Hmmmmm?


Yes, but this was a test launch of possibly an article which is under development.

My internal code builds have a whole bunch more bugs than the releases; but there are still bugs in releases.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 03:26 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The Japanese AAM-4 with AESA seeker is closest to the latest Russian air to air missile.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 04:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

If our A to A missiles suck then can't we just buy a bunch of Japanese ones that you speak of, or better yet give the japanese a few million to further upgrade it.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Raytheon has been trying for years to improve the AMRAAM, including a ramjey powered version. If they can't get approval, what makes you think a Japanese company could?

The Meteor will be getting upgraded with the seeker and control systems from the AAM-4.



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: all2human
Not to bash the US but seems their having some issues with missile's too

U.S. Airstrike Kills 19 at Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan
www.wsj.com...


Those missiles worked perfectly...

BTW the Russian appt strike still counts towards their monthly totals...



posted on Dec, 23 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

But why won't they approve a upgrade. We spend tons of money on other aircraft related things. Why not a2a missiles. I just don't get it...unless the USAF doesn't think we will even need missiles very soon and have some sort of direct energy weapon or something they have greater confidence in. But how would a energy weapon do over the horizon or non direct line of sight stuff unless they are ........Hmmm. Something for bass to ponder this holiday season.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join