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.

 

Chinese/Iranian anti-ship missiles defeat Phalanx CIWS!!!!

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well I remember USS Cole suffered quite a hit, yet survived, I believe that it survived only proves it was well built, not it's capability.


Just to clarify, the reason the USS Cole did not sink was because the exceptional crew that it had worked their ass off amid the chaos to keep the ship afloat, otherwise that 40FT hole at the waterline would have sent her down.




posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 10:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Well I remember USS Cole suffered quite a hit, yet survived, I believe that it survived only proves it was well built, not it's capability.


Just to clarify, the reason the USS Cole did not sink was because the exceptional crew that it had worked their ass off amid the chaos to keep the ship afloat, otherwise that 40FT hole at the waterline would have sent her down.


Good point, yet I'll have to insist that if the USS Cole wasn't well built, it wouldn't have survived either, good crew or not.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili

Can C-701 can be laser guided as well? If so this would explain the hit on Saar 5, as The Vagabond posted before


From what i understand there is only 1 missile but there is a choice of 2 guidence systems that can be used one is TV/Optic guidence and the second is radar guidence.

Both missiles share the same rocket motor, airframe, basic electronics such as stearing and explosive warhead but what is different is the guidence system at the tip of the missile.

So i don't think there is a laser guided version from what i understand only TV optic guided and Radar versions.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jonathan_Pannell
Okay I am sorry but you have to be a fool tho think they had the systme turned off that is just standard DOD propaganda to make people feel safer. I guarantee that if you had a satellite to watch the mediteranean every ship that was withen the same range turned around and got out of range. I am sure the head of Raytheon got an unexpexted call from the DOD wondering how this could happen and I bet hundred of engineers are busy working round the clock to develop a new system that will detect these missiles. Just a joke but I am still waiting for China to unveil its real technology I bet they got little tiny helicopters that are just a little bigger than a perosn with a couple of missile and totally undetectable by radar almost like little bumble bees just zooming all over the place damn that would be funny to see on tv


Actually, to those of us with experience in this area, it's quite believable that the Israeli warship could have been operating with its CIWS either off or in standby.

1st, you would have to consider the threat. That either the Lebanese Armed Forces or Hezbollah was equipped with any kind of ASCM was undoubtedly a surprise to the Israelis. Personally, I would be very surprised if the missile was a C-801, considering the relatively small amount of damage. I would be looking for a smaller weapon. There is no evidence that Lebanese/Hezbollah have ever claimed to possess these weapon, no are there any (public) evidence of test-firings or training. Therefore, it is very likely that the Israeli warship was operating under ROE that did not account for this threat.

2nd, you would consider the possibility of accidental engagement of non-hostile targets. The only aircraft that could have possibly been operating in the area were either Israeli military platforms, or civilian aircraft attempting to land in Beirut. In either case you wouldn't want an auto gun system in Red-Free mode were these platforms would be the only likely engagable targets. And considering that the warship was due west of Beirut where international a/c could conceivably be coming in for attempted landings in Beirut, I would not want my CIWS in Red-Free mode either, range and altitude notwithstanding.

I believe that the Israeli warship probably only considered the Syrian AF as the only credible air/missile threat to them, and feeling fully protected by Israeli F-15's and F-16's prowling around the area, felt safe enough to leave the system in standby.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Even if the title of this thread is true... Let me repeat...

SeaRAM

www.raytheon.com...



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by iqonx
From what i understand there is only 1 missile but there is a choice of 2 guidence systems that can be used one is TV/Optic guidence and the second is radar guidence.

Both missiles share the same rocket motor, airframe, basic electronics such as stearing and explosive warhead but what is different is the guidence system at the tip of the missile.

So i don't think there is a laser guided version from what i understand only TV optic guided and Radar versions.


Just TV optic guided sounds logical from the distance it was shot, and I'm not sure if coastal radar surveillance had already been bombed or not, I think so, so radar is out of the question, besides the fact that it would be picked up right away.

It has a mach .8 cruise speed I believe, so it would have taken 18 secs more or less to hit, range is 15 km at best.

One question though, I believe I read somewhere attacked happened at night, so Tv guided hit would have been hard, wouldn't it? That's why laser painting seemed right

and about


Originally posted by Pyros
2nd, you would consider the possibility of accidental engagement of non-hostile targets. The only aircraft that could have possibly been operating in the area were either Israeli military platforms, or civilian aircraft attempting to land in Beirut. In either case you wouldn't want an auto gun system in Red-Free mode were these platforms would be the only likely engagable targets. And considering that the warship was due west of Beirut where international a/c could conceivably be coming in for attempted landings in Beirut, I would not want my CIWS in Red-Free mode either, range and altitude notwithstanding


Agree and disagree. yes, Phalanx would have been a risk to friendly aircraft, and even if not in auto mode, but in firing solution, it's operators would have a hard time telling friend from foe just by direction, due to the sheer number of aircraft in the area.
Nevertheless, I believe Beirut International Airport was already bombed, so all flights where either grounded or redirected elsewhere, no civ air going into combat zone obviously.
Big but, Phalanx was a possible threat, Barak-1 does have IFF, so it should have been online, they where being constantly fired Katyusha rockets after all, and they knew of the existence of Mirsad-1 UAV in hezbollah posession, so it makes no sense to have it off..agree?

And last but not least


Originally posted by Slap Nuts
Even if the title of this thread is true... Let me repeat...
SeaRAM


Well looks promising, yet if it's based on the Phalanx radar, which by a fluke, has NO IFF, sounds prone to failure as well, don't you agree?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
It has a mach .8 cruise speed I believe, so it would have taken 18 secs more or less to hit, range is 15 km at best.


Your numbers don’t quite add up there, even without factoring in initial speed it would take around a minute to cover 15KM going at .8 Mach.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
It has a mach .8 cruise speed I believe, so it would have taken 18 secs more or less to hit, range is 15 km at best.


Your numbers don’t quite add up there, even without factoring in initial speed it would take around a minute to cover 15KM going at .8 Mach.


Yes I stand corrected, at 978.4 km/h at sea level that is which is was launched from, it takes 55 secs, thanks for your observation.

Anyway, I wonder now how far was the vessel from the coast? If it was practically in harbor, only a couple of miles out in the sea, and the launch was from 13 miles inside the country (unlikely, yet makes me wonder), those 55 secs could change to 10 or 15 secs, not much of a reaction time I guess, in 55 secs, they should have seen a missile coming their way, shouldn't they?



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:28 PM
link   
Here we go, another False Authority Syndrome attempt here;


Actually, to those of us with experience in this area, it's quite believable that the Israeli warship could have been operating with its CIWS either off or in standby.


Let me correct that and put it the way it really is,

"Actually, us being the only tru followers of Jesus Christ, say that tis is really how it is, and the ones who think otherwise are the spawn of the devil."

Pyros, that's just a tad cheap, try again, because all I have to do is ask, who are you and what exactly is your experience in this area?

In short, since you are making claims, what are your credentials?



1st, you would have to consider the threat. That either the Lebanese Armed Forces or Hezbollah was equipped with any kind of ASCM was undoubtedly a surprise to the Israelis.


From now on I'll just recycle earlier posts, since persons like your self choose to ignore them even though basic facts have been already established.


Personally, I would be very surprised if the missile was a C-801, considering the relatively small amount of damage.


Personally? What happened to "those of us with experience in this area"? That was just a header, wasn't it? Like, hey, listen to what I say, because all the important people like and support me!

You're just like a true politician! I know politicians though, try again.


I would be looking for a smaller weapon. There is no evidence that Lebanese/Hezbollah have ever claimed to possess these weapon, no are there any (public) evidence of test-firings or training. Therefore, it is very likely that the Israeli warship was operating under ROE that did not account for this threat.


I would stop making baseless assumptions in light of readily available information. Hey, maybe Martians launched a hostile mind probe, and that's the target that the Phalanx actually intercepted while letting the missile get by.

That's my personal opinion, which is off course supported by the old wise scholar association, and if you disagree with me you'll just admit your allegiance to the Gods of chaos.


2nd, you would consider the possibility of accidental engagement of non-hostile targets. The only aircraft that could have possibly been operating in the area were either Israeli military platforms, or civilian aircraft attempting to land in Beirut.


Then we can also consider how the solar flare affects a monkey that's eating a date.


In either case you wouldn't want an auto gun system in Red-Free mode were these platforms would be the only likely engagable targets. And considering that the warship was due west of Beirut where international a/c could conceivably be coming in for attempted landings in Beirut, I would not want my CIWS in Red-Free mode either, range and altitude notwithstanding.


Well that's you, yet in real life, having facts in hand, the ones like Iran supplying Hezbollah with weapons of all kinds, and clearly being with in the striking range of a number of weapons, NOT activating defenses is criminal negligence. Look that one up.


I believe that the Israeli warship probably only considered the Syrian AF as the only credible air/missile threat to them, and feeling fully protected by Israeli F-15's and F-16's prowling around the area, felt safe enough to leave the system in standby.


So your personally belief, off course in conjunction with your earlier claim of credibility based on collective professional experience in the field, is what should be considered "way and above" common sense, facts at hand, and historical statistics?

Please Pyros, triX are for kids.

Slap Nuts got it right. SeaRAM to replace Phalanx. I wonder why? Could it be because up to date it failed EVERY SINGLE TIME?!

No no, wait, there's some collective experience from the people who know how it really is, so somebody was negligent in not turning the system on, or didn't know how to operate it properly, or something else was not quiet right, but other then that, Phalanx is an excellent system, and if it wasn't for all the incompetent people around it, it would show what it really can do, right?

Just to make sure let's go over the Facts we do know.

1.) Syria/Iran posses ASCMs.
2.) Hezbollah is supported by Iran/Syria
3.) Hezbollah uses UAV drones for surveillance.
4.) UAV drones are from Iran.
5.) Before the missile attack a drone was observed by the crew.
6.) As soon as an enemy drone, which is known to be capable of being used as a WEAPON is observed, defensive systems are activated.
7.) Missile strikes the ship.
8.) Cambodian civilian ship is attacked and sunk.

No Martians, no stand buy, no nothing.

If the captain not only did not try to shoot down an enemy drone, but then even chose not to activate the defenses after an enemy drones has been observed, he's ether criminally incompetent or simply committed treason.

No more scenarios, no more personal opinions, no more holding patterns, no more opinions supported by the professionals in the field, if a captain fails to defend his ship after an enemy drone has been observed, he is to be courtmarshaled, or the defenses failed.

We'll see about that, I say that the defenses failed, because for me it's impossible to image that Israeli military is that incompetent.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 03:48 PM
link   
I'd say that about sums it up.

There is one of two scenarios here at play:

1. Either the hardware failed to do what it was supposed to do.
2. The people operating the hardware failed to operate the hardware correctly or weren't following procedure.

Either way the system failed and there is no denying that. I for one hope it was a glitch in the hardware and not some incompetent captain that sat around and watched his ship get taken out while his defenses sat idle.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Hezbollah predicted that they would strike the ship. This means they KNEW that their attack would be successful because I dont think they would risk the morale hit of being wrong. I think this rules out error on the part of the Israeli crew.

Israel has bitten off more than they can chew this time. Bombing the # out of Lebanese civilians is just going to increase Lebanese support for Hezbollah. Expect Mossad to pull off an Israeli 9/11 soon to rally the jews.



posted on Jul, 20 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
There are a two very interesting articles out today about the missile attack as a result of the Israeli investigation:


The Israeli warship's crew had only twenty seconds in which to identify the threat and respond.

Although the ship's defense systems spotted the incoming Iranian missile, the problem was cognitive. Because of the missile's speed and the short distance of the ship from shore (16 kilometers), and because the crew was unprepared for this kind of threat, the radar and electronic warfare systems operators had only 20 seconds to realize that they were under attack by an enemy missile.


and this one:


Probe: Intelligence, operational lapses caused vessel attack

The naval inquiry indicates that another missile ship that was near the Hanit at the time of the attack did deploy its defense system in response to a second Hezbollah rocket. That rocket hit a cargo ship bearing the Cambodian flag.


The CIA says it was a C-802 Noor missile. The interesting thing about that, is that the Noor is an Iranian built version of the C-802, not a chinese version, so if the CIA is saying "Noor" specifically that is without question an Iranian supplied weapon.

The Noor is estimated to cost around $250,000 to build. That is a pretty expensive weapon to give Hezbollah, makes you wonder what else they have.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 12:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by darksided

The Israeli warship's crew had only twenty seconds in which to identify the threat and respond.


Impossible, if the missile had been launched from the coast, at top speed, that if indeed was the C-802 is 1100 km/h, it would have taken 52 secs, at least.
And the missile would have appeared sooner than 20 secs, by 20 secs, the missile would have been only 6 km away, unlikely radar didn't warn them sooner that an incoming warhead, flying that fast was coming their way...sounds like excuse for faulty system to me...



.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander


As soon as the crew goes into battle stations and engages in combat, ALL defense systems are activated by PROCEDURE.

Procedure people, and if for some absurd reason the Captain ORDERS to break procedure and DISENGAGE defense systems while on full battle stations status which resulted in a sucsesfull enemy attack on the ship, he should be tried for TREASON and executed.


Why? There would be procedure for when defence systems are taken offline as well.

Look again at the previously-quoted HMS Sheffield story.

All Procedures are dictated by rules of engagement and operational posture.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 01:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Here we go, another False Authority Syndrome attempt here;


Actually, to those of us with experience in this area, it's quite believable that the Israeli warship could have been operating with its CIWS either off or in standby.


Let me correct that and put it the way it really is,

"Actually, us being the only tru followers of Jesus Christ, say that tis is really how it is, and the ones who think otherwise are the spawn of the devil."

Pyros, that's just a tad cheap, try again, because all I have to do is ask, who are you and what exactly is your experience in this area?


Iskander, this isn't just cheap, it's pathetic. Ordinarily I don't go in for these, but



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ioseb_Jugashvili
Impossible, if the missile had been launched from the coast, at top speed, that if indeed was the C-802 is 1100 km/h, it would have taken 52 secs, at least.
And the missile would have appeared sooner than 20 secs, by 20 secs, the missile would have been only 6 km away, unlikely radar didn't warn them sooner that an incoming warhead, flying that fast was coming their way...sounds like excuse for faulty system to me...
.


Impossible for a missile to achieve any rated velocity immediately on launch, especially if its only some 17-20 km from its target. Infact if a missile with a 80+km range is used in a 20 km scenario all its stages will be constricted and all velocities will not be at rated values.
Now if it was a C-701 then we can look at rated values..



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Here we go, another False Authority Syndrome attempt here;


Actually, to those of us with experience in this area, it's quite believable that the Israeli warship could have been operating with its CIWS either off or in standby.


Let me correct that and put it the way it really is,

"Actually, us being the only tru followers of Jesus Christ, say that tis is really how it is, and the ones who think otherwise are the spawn of the devil."

Pyros, that's just a tad cheap, try again, because all I have to do is ask, who are you and what exactly is your experience in this area?

In short, since you are making claims, what are your credentials?


I am a US Navy veteran, Electronic Wafrafe Technician First Class. I am also a qualified Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist. I served on 2 ships equipped with the Vulcan Phalanx CIWS, and I am intimate with is operation and capabilties. I have used the system personally in both operational and training situations. I have physically handled and operated both the mount and the controls for this system. I am also an ex-employee of Raytheon Electronic Systems, and I have personally meet the Phalanx PM, and have seen many briefings on its capabilities and potential upgrades and improvements. Hows that?


1st, you would have to consider the threat. That either the Lebanese Armed Forces or Hezbollah was equipped with any kind of ASCM was undoubtedly a surprise to the Israelis.


From now on I'll just recycle earlier posts, since persons like your self choose to ignore them even though basic facts have been already established.

What basic facts? Do you have some myseterious access to Israeli after-action and damage control reports that describe the engagement in detail? Or maybe you have some access to hot intel that you are not sharing? I am basing my opinion on a few things: 1) The ship did not sink, not was it "put out of action". 2) There was only a small number of casualties. 3) Video of the ship broadcast internationally shows hull damage that suggest a small diameter weapon with a small warhead 4) I have access to EOB and NOB infomation that suggests that Hezbollah does not own/operate these kinds of weapons.


Personally, I would be very surprised if the missile was a C-801, considering the relatively small amount of damage.


Personally? What happened to "those of us with experience in this area"? That was just a header, wasn't it? Like, hey, listen to what I say, because all the important people like and support me!

You're just like a true politician! I know politicians though, try again.

What, people cant have personal opinions here? Who died and left you in charge? I caveated my response with the term "personal" to indicate that it was self-developed opinion, and not fact.


I would be looking for a smaller weapon. There is no evidence that Lebanese/Hezbollah have ever claimed to possess these weapon, no are there any (public) evidence of test-firings or training. Therefore, it is very likely that the Israeli warship was operating under ROE that did not account for this threat.


I would stop making baseless assumptions in light of readily available information. Hey, maybe Martians launched a hostile mind probe, and that's the target that the Phalanx actually intercepted while letting the missile get by.

That's my personal opinion, which is off course supported by the old wise scholar association, and if you disagree with me you'll just admit your allegiance to the Gods of chaos.

Whatever, dude. My assumptions aren't baseless, they are supported by my personal experience and my access to relavent information on the topic.


2nd, you would consider the possibility of accidental engagement of non-hostile targets. The only aircraft that could have possibly been operating in the area were either Israeli military platforms, or civilian aircraft attempting to land in Beirut.


Then we can also consider how the solar flare affects a monkey that's eating a date.

I'm glad your have provided us with a good example of your technical expertise in this topic


In either case you wouldn't want an auto gun system in Red-Free mode were these platforms would be the only likely engagable targets. And considering that the warship was due west of Beirut where international a/c could conceivably be coming in for attempted landings in Beirut, I would not want my CIWS in Red-Free mode either, range and altitude notwithstanding.


Well that's you, yet in real life, having facts in hand, the ones like Iran supplying Hezbollah with weapons of all kinds, and clearly being with in the striking range of a number of weapons, NOT activating defenses is criminal negligence. Look that one up.

It may be criminal negligence, but that doesn't diminish my arguement.


I believe that the Israeli warship probably only considered the Syrian AF as the only credible air/missile threat to them, and feeling fully protected by Israeli F-15's and F-16's prowling around the area, felt safe enough to leave the system in standby.


So your personally belief, off course in conjunction with your earlier claim of credibility based on collective professional experience in the field, is what should be considered "way and above" common sense, facts at hand, and historical statistics?

Again, I have way more experience in this area than you might suspect. When I first read about this event, it made me think back to an old Navy friend of mine, EW3 Charles "Chuck" Moller, who I went through school with. He died on the USS Stark - a ship I was supposed to be assigned to, but instead went to Chuck. Unlike the keyboard cowboys of the interenet, I actually spend a good number of years training and implementing ASCM defense techniques for small naval surface combatants. How bout you, Sparky?

Please Pyros, triX are for kids.

Slap Nuts got it right. SeaRAM to replace Phalanx. I wonder why? Could it be because up to date it failed EVERY SINGLE TIME?!

No no, wait, there's some collective experience from the people who know how it really is, so somebody was negligent in not turning the system on, or didn't know how to operate it properly, or something else was not quiet right, but other then that, Phalanx is an excellent system, and if it wasn't for all the incompetent people around it, it would show what it really can do, right?

Just to make sure let's go over the Facts we do know.

1.) Syria/Iran posses ASCMs.
2.) Hezbollah is supported by Iran/Syria
3.) Hezbollah uses UAV drones for surveillance.
4.) UAV drones are from Iran.
5.) Before the missile attack a drone was observed by the crew.
6.) As soon as an enemy drone, which is known to be capable of being used as a WEAPON is observed, defensive systems are activated.
7.) Missile strikes the ship.
8.) Cambodian civilian ship is attacked and sunk.

No Martians, no stand buy, no nothing.

If the captain not only did not try to shoot down an enemy drone, but then even chose not to activate the defenses after an enemy drones has been observed, he's ether criminally incompetent or simply committed treason.

No more scenarios, no more personal opinions, no more holding patterns, no more opinions supported by the professionals in the field, if a captain fails to defend his ship after an enemy drone has been observed, he is to be courtmarshaled, or the defenses failed.

We'll see about that, I say that the defenses failed, because for me it's impossible to image that Israeli military is that incompetent.


Since I have taken the time to respond to your request for "qualification, why don't you do the same? Enlighten us with the vast amount of experience you have in the field by providing your qualifications..



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Why? There would be procedure for when defence systems are taken offline as well.

Look again at the previously-quoted HMS Sheffield story.

All Procedures are dictated by rules of engagement and operational posture.


Absolutely correct HowlrunnerIV, yet after sighing of an enemy asset that is capable of attacking you position, it is required to assume a defensive posture.

In this case it's about the UAV drone that bussed the ship prior to attack.

Yea here we go to button pushers again. With everything is OK DOD "whiteout papers".


I am a US Navy veteran, Electronic Wafrafe Technician First Class. I am also a qualified Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist. I served on 2 ships equipped with the Vulcan Phalanx CIWS, and I am intimate with is operation and capabilties. I have used the system personally in both operational and training situations. I have physically handled and operated both the mount and the controls for this system. I am also an ex-employee of Raytheon Electronic Systems, and I have personally meet the Phalanx PM, and have seen many briefings on its capabilities and potential upgrades and improvements. Hows that?


That's just great Pyros. I am further disappointed that you missed the whole point of the question though.

With all do respect, the FIRST question asked in any given situation is "where am I?". In this case, we're all on anonymous public forum. The very POINT of such forums, is about WHAT people say, NOT whom and what they are. Really basic stuff here.

If you want to present your information from a stand point of your professional experience, there are specific forums where industry professionals exchange work related information, this is NOT such a place.

Since you say you personally worked on Phalanx program, you should know all well that it was designed as an afterthought, and NOT as an INTEGRATED system. You can weld the damn thing on a pickup truck for God sakes. Further more, it was based on a obviously ineffective 20mm caliber for the role of point defense.

Goalkeeper CIWS on the other hand, IS an integrated system, based on a PROPER 30mm GAU-8 base, and unlike Phalanx it tracks multiple targets, 18 of them.


What basic facts? Do you have some myseterious access to Israeli after-action and damage control reports that describe the engagement in detail? Or maybe you have some access to hot intel that you are not sharing?


Pyros, if to you CNN is a form of mysterious intel, I'm at a total loss here.


I am basing my opinion on a few things: 1) The ship did not sink, not was it "put out of action". 2) There was only a small number of casualties. 3) Video of the ship broadcast internationally shows hull damage that suggest a small diameter weapon with a small warhead 4) I have access to EOB and NOB infomation that suggests that Hezbollah does not own/operate these kinds of weapons.


Points 1 through 3 are completely irrelevant. Point 4 is partrially correct, yet again, for over a WEEK EVERY single media source has quoted various Israeli officials including the Prime Minister, all of whom have been repeating the same thing, Iranian forces are operating in Lebanon, and that the missile in question was launched by Iranian personnel. Hezbollah on the other hand is stating that the attack was carried out by their own forces. EOB, NOB, watch TV, all I can say.


What, people cant have personal opinions here? Who died and left you in charge? I caveated my response with the term "personal" to indicate that it was self-developed opinion, and not fact.


That's great, please feel free, yet since factual information is readily available from every news sours, also feel free to present your theories on a vast number of conspiracy sections available on ATS forum.


Whatever, dude. My assumptions aren't baseless, they are supported by my personal experience and my access to relavent information on the topic.


Well put, see above.


I'm glad your have provided us with a good example of your technical expertise in this topic.


Long time ago my dad told me to always be aware of people that don't get sarcasm, because they're the type of people that very possibly can find pulling a pin out of a grenade to be hysterically funny. I'll keep my distance on this one.


It may be criminal negligence, but that doesn't diminish my arguement.


Sure, and if you see a guy leaning on your car looking all mean and waving a baseball bat, I'm sure you'll not at all think that something bad is about to happen, and when there's another guy with a shot gun walking up from another direction. No, judging by your argument you'll not even take the safety of, you'll just kind of sit back and see what happens. With arguments like that you must be a great pacifist or a Buddhist or something.


Again, I have way more experience in this area than you might suspect. When I first read about this event, it made me think back to an old Navy friend of mine, EW3 Charles "Chuck" Moller, who I went through school with. He died on the USS Stark - a ship I was supposed to be assigned to, but instead went to Chuck. Unlike the keyboard cowboys of the interenet, I actually spend a good number of years training and implementing ASCM defense techniques for small naval surface combatants. How bout you, Sparky?


Well, Sparky can only applaud your love for story telling. I recommend publishing in a biography section, I'd love to read your stuff, and sorry, I don't know what your Assumed Name Certificate is filed under.

www.co.kane.il.us...


Since I have taken the time to respond to your request for "qualification, why don't you do the same? Enlighten us with the vast amount of experience you have in the field by providing your qualifications..


See above and ask me that again.

edit:missed a q bracket

[edit on 21-7-2006 by iskander]

[edit on 21-7-2006 by iskander]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 05:09 PM
link   
freakyty got it right, with out any chest pounding or cyberspace resume pitching.



Israel has bitten off more than they can chew this time. Bombing the # out of Lebanese civilians is just going to increase Lebanese support for Hezbollah. Expect Mossad to pull off an Israeli 9/11 soon to rally the jews.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   
Iskander

I got a good laugh from seeing you get totally ripped to shreds by a person with actual knowledge of the system in doubt.

As far as your claim about the CIWS being welded to the bed of a truck....

You might want to do some basic calcs on that man, what kinda truck we talking here, the largest dump truck in the world? I'm beginning to wonder if you've even seen a photo of the CIWS. Keep it up though, its pretty funny.

Train



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join