Hit-to-kill is my understanding. They had to shave off the proximity warhead in order to accommodate the second stage; they wanted the missile to be no longer than the standard AMRAAM.
i think the yanks should spend defense money in this,this program is much better than the stationary BMD program that was cancel by obama,this anti-ballistic missile is launch from a mobile platform like the 1's they av on AEGIS equip destroyers,they are moving targets,hard to hit,stationary BMD site in poland will get bomb 1st by the russian in a war,its gonna be gone in the 1st 2 hrs in a war against russia,this n the AEGIS BMD on ship are alot better n more mobile.
Besides, the Russian aircraft have to get through BMD to bomb BMD! The fact that most ABM missiles are also capable of engaging aircraft is often overlooked. I think the stationary BMD site was favored because it could be deployed now. Ships at see are pretty vulnerable; good luck taking out a BMD silo with anything less than a nuke.
now tell me,can a stationary BMD site in europe intercept a china BM,fuck no,a destroyer wit BMD capabiliy of the coast of japan or s.korea or a fighter jet wit this type of intercept missile can,also,stationary BMD sites are more vulnerable mate,russia n china operate cruise missiles like the yanks that fly under the radar or BMD site radar system,a burke destroyer av systems to kill those cruise missiles n a jet fighter can also kill n fly underneath radar coverage,mobile betta than stationry.
Hit-to-kill is my understanding. They had to shave off the proximity warhead in order to accommodate the second stage; they wanted the missile to be no longer than the standard AMRAAM.
dmcfarli 2 years ago
i think the yanks should spend defense money in this,this program is much better than the stationary BMD program that was cancel by obama,this anti-ballistic missile is launch from a mobile platform like the 1's they av on AEGIS equip destroyers,they are moving targets,hard to hit,stationary BMD site in poland will get bomb 1st by the russian in a war,its gonna be gone in the 1st 2 hrs in a war against russia,this n the AEGIS BMD on ship are alot better n more mobile.
fmoa 2 years ago
@fmoa
Really orthogonal, complementary platforms.
Besides, the Russian aircraft have to get through BMD to bomb BMD! The fact that most ABM missiles are also capable of engaging aircraft is often overlooked. I think the stationary BMD site was favored because it could be deployed now. Ships at see are pretty vulnerable; good luck taking out a BMD silo with anything less than a nuke.
dmcfarli 2 years ago
now tell me,can a stationary BMD site in europe intercept a china BM,fuck no,a destroyer wit BMD capabiliy of the coast of japan or s.korea or a fighter jet wit this type of intercept missile can,also,stationary BMD sites are more vulnerable mate,russia n china operate cruise missiles like the yanks that fly under the radar or BMD site radar system,a burke destroyer av systems to kill those cruise missiles n a jet fighter can also kill n fly underneath radar coverage,mobile betta than stationry.
fmoa 2 years ago
@fmoa
It can if it is bound for Europe with Terminal ABM missiles such as THAAD.
cr9527 5 months ago
Will the actual NCADE have a warhead or be hit-to-kill?
PrinzEugn 3 years ago