You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
50% seems a little high, but I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected.
I still remember with bemusement the poster who claimed that every single cruise missile from a Russian bombardment must have hit the target. None could have failed ...
"... I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected ..."
Crikey and you a software engineer as well. If you standards are that out of 59 instances of use there should be one or more failures I hope to God you never work on things like ABS brakes.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
Russian reports, the US claims 58 out of 59.
That sounds high to me, but not implausibly so given US experience with them. Although 'made it to target' might cover a multitude of sins ...
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
50% seems a little high, but I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected.
I still remember with bemusement the poster who claimed that every single cruise missile from a Russian bombardment must have hit the target. None could have failed ...
"... I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected ..."
Crikey and you a software engineer as well. If you standards are that out of 59 instances of use there should be one or more failures I hope to God you never work on things like ABS brakes.
Cruise missiles are slightly more complex than ABS brakes, and there's much less experience with them.
You really don't have much of a clue do you. These guys do not give a crap and will eb very happy to start trouble. They will lose no sleep over it for sure, will be too busy laughing that only 29 of the missiles managed to hit their target.
You believe the Russian numbers but not the US numbers?
Even so, what does it say about the supposedly formidable Russian air defences that Syria has when they can't defeat such an attack? Assad should be giving some serious thought about where it is safe to sleep in Syria.
Fact that Russians did not fire one missule just makes it more likely it was a sham between the two superpowers to fool the gullible and it seems to have gone down a treat.
Also it seems only about 50% of the Tomahawks made it to target, according to reports.
Russian reports, the US claims 58 out of 59.
That sounds high to me, but not implausibly so given US experience with them. Although 'made it to target' might cover a multitude of sins ...
50% seems a little high, but I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected.
I still remember with bemusement the poster who claimed that every single cruise missile from a Russian bombardment must have hit the target. None could have failed ...
"... I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected ..."
Crikey and you a software engineer as well. If you standards are that out of 59 instances of use there should be one or more failures I hope to God you never work on things like ABS brakes.
Disagree, in software engineering it's healthy to assume everything is going to fail. This is *especially* true if bad things happen when it does.
That sounds high to me, but not implausibly so given US experience with them. Although 'made it to target' might cover a multitude of sins ...
90% or more is not implausible. Storm Shadow, which the RAF use, has something like a 98% success rate.
I think when people see the word missile they imagine a rocket and very high speeds, but most of the cruise missiles the US and NATO use are basically small turbofan or turbojet powered aircraft. There is nothing intrinsically difficult about building small reliable sub-sonic aircraft. And modern cruise missiles have a multi-faceted navigation system, so there is a high level of redundancy and accuracy to their navigation. There is also little in the way of mission critical communication or navigation signals that can be defeated. So unless you happen to detect* it flying at tree top height to the target in time to intercept it, it will reach its target.
* Assuming the air defence system hasn't already been subverted electronically.
That sounds high to me, but not implausibly so given US experience with them. Although 'made it to target' might cover a multitude of sins ...
90% or more is not implausible. Storm Shadow, which the RAF use, has something like a 98% success rate.
I think when people see the word missile they imagine a rocket and very high speeds, but most of the cruise missiles the US and NATO use are basically small turbofan or turbojet powered aircraft. There is nothing intrinsically difficult about building small reliable sub-sonic aircraft. And modern cruise missiles have a multi-faceted navigation system, so there is a high level of redundancy and accuracy to their navigation. There is also little in the way of mission critical communication or navigation signals that can be defeated. So unless you happen to detect* it flying at tree top height to the target in time to intercept it, it will reach its target.
* Assuming the air defence system hasn't already been subverted electronically.
The more you fire, the more you learn. And the US have fired a great many over the last few years.
The more you fire, the more you learn. And the US have fired a great many over the last few years.
Very true, and a lot of this kit has been through upgrades or successor programmes since Desert Storm which is when we first saw things like Stealth, GPS, and cruise missiles used to a significant degree. That's not to say it is perfect, but the accuracy and reliability have improved significantly.
50% seems a little high, but I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected.
I still remember with bemusement the poster who claimed that every single cruise missile from a Russian bombardment must have hit the target. None could have failed ...
"... I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected ..."
Crikey and you a software engineer as well. If you standards are that out of 59 instances of use there should be one or more failures I hope to God you never work on things like ABS brakes.
Disagree, in software engineering it's healthy to assume everything is going to fail. This is *especially* true if bad things happen when it does.
But, Mr. Tokyo, then you build in redundant systems, back ups and other such wonders. I am fairly sure that the software engineers at Boeing know about this sort of stuff. I am fairly sure too that Mr. Jessup does. Hence my original post, that an engineer of his experience still expects his software to fail more than once in every 59 uses does not inspire confidence.
Whilst you are just an obnoxious little oik who is unable to take it. Go plait your pigtails jessie boy.
Honestly coming from you that's almost complimentary, I wouldn't want to be on your side of this argument.
You would rather be a blinkered moron that believes any rubbish fed to you , a total muppet incapable of cogent thought,
You mean he doesn't agree with you Malc.. Is the sun shining in the Midlands? You seem to have caught a touch.. and so early in the day too.
Your guidance geometrics are about as accurate as US missiles , 300 miles off target. No problem with him diasgreeing , I meanwhile doubt some of the information and engage my brain whereas the fool just regurgitates US propaganda verbatim. Not enough brains to be able to think for himself.
50% seems a little high, but I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected.
I still remember with bemusement the poster who claimed that every single cruise missile from a Russian bombardment must have hit the target. None could have failed ...
"... I'd be amazed if every single one worked as expected ..."
Crikey and you a software engineer as well. If you standards are that out of 59 instances of use there should be one or more failures I hope to God you never work on things like ABS brakes.
Disagree, in software engineering it's healthy to assume everything is going to fail. This is *especially* true if bad things happen when it does.
But, Mr. Tokyo, then you build in redundant systems, back ups and other such wonders. I am fairly sure that the software engineers at Boeing know about this sort of stuff. I am fairly sure too that Mr. Jessup does. Hence my original post, that an engineer of his experience still expects his software to fail more than once in every 59 uses does not inspire confidence.
I can assure you my software always works 100% well 110% of the time. But cruise missiles are also hardware, and as we all know, any failures are always caused by hardware. The software is blameless ...
Blukip is definitely a thing now. Not sure what's in it for the Tories.
Reabsorbing the purple frothers protects the right flank, and is something entirely in keeping with where the Tories sympathies lie.
Sympathy maybe. I always thought it served the Tories very well, almost to the point of genius, to outsource its Tea Party fringe.
The lunatics have now taken over the asylum.
Exhibit one: BoJo as Foreign Secretary pulling out of meetings in Moscow. This is very much the time to open communications with Russia, not cut them off. If anyone can put pressure on Assad, it is Putin.
Fallon is on full frontal assault on Russia.
Hopefully not literally, or we
Absolutely right. or.
Nope. At the time of the Iran Iraq war when we were actively supporting the side using chemical weapons we cokkd gave taken concrete steps by withdrawing support for Saddam. .
I am getting on and my memory is not what it once was, but what support was the UK actually giving to Saddam during the Iraq/Iran war? I know that we had refused to build his chemical weapons production facilities (that was done by the West Germans) and I know that most of his military hardware was provided by the Russians (with a bit of help from the French). So in what way was the UK actively supporting him?
Getting a bit hot in the garden here in Leics!
Anecdote 1: An Iraqi friend of mine showed me her medical school photos from the Eighties in Baghdad. Big hair and shoulderpads, much like my own in London. No hijab on show. Then she started pointing out her classmates who disappeared into Saddams prisons never to be seen again. She hates Saddam, the Islamists and Bush with equal passion for what they done to her country. She hasnt been home for decades.
Anecdote 2: An Iranian friend of mine was sent age 14 on his own into exile to a Boarding school in Britain and told by his parents to not return. They feared that he would be conscripted into the Iranian human wave attacks. He didn't dare ever return. Now a paediatrician in Canada.
Anecdote 3: A Syrian friend works every weekend as a Locum as he is supporting so many relatives in camps and Europe. He had family gassed in 2013, but survived.
No real point, just bloody grateful to be living in the English countryside.
Comments
Crikey and you a software engineer as well. If you standards are that out of 59 instances of use there should be one or more failures I hope to God you never work on things like ABS brakes.
Edge and corner cases are barstewards.
I think when people see the word missile they imagine a rocket and very high speeds, but most of the cruise missiles the US and NATO use are basically small turbofan or turbojet powered aircraft. There is nothing intrinsically difficult about building small reliable sub-sonic aircraft. And modern cruise missiles have a multi-faceted navigation system, so there is a high level of redundancy and accuracy to their navigation. There is also little in the way of mission critical communication or navigation signals that can be defeated. So unless you happen to detect* it flying at tree top height to the target in time to intercept it, it will reach its target.
* Assuming the air defence system hasn't already been subverted electronically.
For the record - I am not a Trump fan boy.
NEW THREAD WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY NOT CLICKBAIT
Ahem.