Here’s the real question, regardless of political views, what do we do about it? No matter what side of the ailse you’re on, it should piss you off that it was even attempted, but how do we respond?

Because it’s relevant to see what Russian media says about the strike (propaganda or not). It certainly doesn’t read like an endorsement to me.

So now RT is a legitimate news source?

Military aircraft don’t fly with live weapons on training flights over built up areas.

These are fairly large ships, larger than the WWII destroyers of my youth. They also appear to be very capable so, of course, we will cut the Coast Guard budget in order to help fund a border wall. The wall will probably cost more than 20 of these cutters. The cutters work better, but the wall makes for better sound…

So, how does this work? They’re not selling the drugs that they seize, so it’s not like they can use them to pay off the cost of the ship...

Russia: Silly Americans! We have low-frequency L-band radars which can see your vaunted stealth aircraft, and we can direct our fighters and missiles against them with ease!

I suspect it was never supposed to work, it supposed to be held up as evidence that ‘America cannot be trusted no matter what!’

Except for all the chanting of “Putin the Thief” in the streets, yeah, you’re right.

One of those pesky little consequences of having a semi-active guidance system, the Patriot missile also requires the target be within line of sight of its launcher.

Not everybody plays nice with each other.

Saw a bunch of successful shots from Hawaii the Navy has had better success including a Satellite intercept from HI. Ground based has been a problem I don’t know why intercept problem is easier due to launcher data known down to knatts ass. Navy Fire Control has all ways been better.

The Sprint used a 650,000 pound thrust first stage that burned for 1.5 seconds and then a second stage that would have the Sprint going Mach 10 in five seconds. To deal with 7,600mph at low altitude an ablative shield was designed. In the videos you can see that when the second stage gets going the entire missile…

Sprint missiles could do it. But the Canadians didn’t like the use of nuclear warheads on missiles being used to stop missiles with nuclear warheads.

Yes. As a matter of fact, the US Navy SM-6 has had numerous successful intercepts. The issue are these massive, long range, ground based missiles.

Midcourse, an ICBM warhead bus is essentially a low-orbiting satellite on a crash course. Easier to hit the whole shebang before it reaches the terminal phase where the bus starts popping out the much small reentry vehicle(s) and penetration aids (the decoys).

One or two re-entry vehicles, say from a rogue state or a powerful non-state actor? Maybe, given a pretty decent-sized savo of interceptors from multiple platforms. Terminal phase intercept (ie: during re-entry, as you say) gives you the most straight-forward sensor picture, but obviously the smallest margins of…

What’s wrong with driving more whales to extinction if it means we can drop freedom bombs underwater now!

“We want to use signals that propagate very well underwater,” says Niedzwiecki. “And it turns out that acoustic signals propagate extremely well.” 

It was at this point I started to worry about wildlife.

When you started, you promised to keep your biases out of your reporting. You are failing miserably. FA needs honest reporting; not another gawker wanabee. I would guess you are losing military readers by droves due to your bias. Stop it.