• Hindenburg flies again: D.C. to Be Protected from Cruise Missiles by $2.7 Billion Blimps
    32 replies, posted
[QUOTE=The Worm;41608720]how effective were barrage balloons in WWII?[/QUOTE]They didn't bring down many ground attack aircraft on their own, but what they did do was force the planes to fly higher, into concentrated AA fire and fighters. [editline]27th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Awesomecaek;41611784]Who the hell would shoot cruise missiles at D.C? From where? Are they sure it's not meant to be against ICBMs?[/QUOTE]It'd be utterly useless against an ICBM warhead, wouldn't it? Those require rather sophisticated radar to detect a relatively small warhead plummeting to earth from near the edge of space at many times the speed of sound, or a satellite to detect the initial launch.
[quote]They will provide a comforting amount of "minutes," rather than the current "seconds" of time for U.S. forces to decide what to do with the threat of an antiship cruise missile.[/quote] Nope, they are for real. Who the christ expects antiship cruise missile attack near American coast? [editline]27th July 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Sgt Doom;41611787]They didn't bring down many ground attack aircraft on their own, but what they did do was force the planes to fly higher, into concentrated AA fire and fighters. [editline]27th July 2013[/editline] It'd be utterly useless against an ICBM warhead, wouldn't it? Those require rather sophisticated radar to detect a relatively small warhead plummeting to earth from near the edge of space at many times the speed of sound, or a satellite to detect the initial launch.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, and also ICBM launch is such a massive atmospheric event I am pretty sure that both USA and Russia and probably others will be able to detect them on launch anywhere in the world through satellites and over the horizon radar. This is literally meant against anti-ship cruise missiles meant to knock out big ships.
What strikes me is that the United States isn't at war with any military developed country. Afghanistan and Iraq definitely don't have a large fleet of ships or the cruise missiles to pack. Maybe North Korea, but i think South Korea would let us know LONG before any ships carrying warheads arrived on our coast. So... why the need for this at all? Especially when programs like the "Star Wars Program" have branched off into things like NORAD and who knows what other black projects the Gov't has hiding up its sleeve. This is just too weird for me. [b]Edit:[/b] [QUOTE=TheTalon;41608933]These can only be placed in areas that are in restricted air space, can't they? 10,000 feet is the altitude that airliners can exceed the 250knt speed limit and turn off their landing lights. It's a high altitude in the way, whereas an altitude of say 400ft is far less so. The island the WTCs were on, Above the Pentagon and White House are restricted air space, but other than those and a few other places... this seems like just a waste of fucking money. We have radar stations, we have Aegis ships, we have NORAD and more radar stations, we have satellites... Why do we need 100 year old technology with 10 year old cameras and some sort of radar on them sitting stationary over the mainland USA at the cost of nearly 3 billion dollars Down a quarter of our fighter jets to save money (Which are now flying again, as of a few days ago) But instead of saving the money, you're just throwing it at something as silly as this[/QUOTE] Actually could not have said it any better. By any chance are you in an Aviation-related field?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.