4 ms·
Not sure exploding rockets on their launch platform is such a good thing when they're carrying a bunch of highly explosive / fragmentary warheads (in addition t
by switchbak 2y ago
Not sure exploding rockets on their launch platform is such a good thing when they're carrying a bunch of highly explosive / fragmentary warheads (in addition to the rocket itself, which is plenty dangerous).
Unless this was something like a cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal.
- gridspy 2y agoI'm sure even in this case, risking the air-frame of the bomber or friendlies on the ground below is not ideal. Bear in mind cruise missiles are usually launched from friendly territory. Also, failures might reduce the accuracy of the missile, leading to potential civilian causalities.
- sandworm101 2y ago>> cruise missile dropped at altitude where a failure isn't a big deal. If failure isn't a big deal, then the weapon should no have been used. An ALCM costs millions. The destruction it causes is part of a larger battle plan. Should it not work properly then friendly forces may die. Should it work properly then enemy forces may die. The effectiveness of such a weapon is never not a big deal.
- DrFalkyn 2y agoIf it’s that critical then they aren’t launching one cruise missile. If system A costs 1k quid but only works 50% of the time, while system B works 99% of the time but costs 10k quid, system A actually makes a lot more sense. On average you are going to spend a lot less money for the same outcome.
- fragmede 2y agoWhat's the price on weapons technology falling into enemy hands? A dud is a gold mine of data for an enemy's reverse-engineers.