 Oster
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 104 Posts
|
Saturday, April 07, 2012 7:21:52 AM
That was unexpectedly serene and beautiful. |
|
onoffonoffon
Male, 30-39, Western US
1245 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 10:57:13 PM
Since no one has figured it out yet.....by having it take off from the water the blast from the rocket motor won't be near the ship and as that is a small ship that's a real issue. It also has to go below wave level so it can achieve an initial trajectory that is truer and not affected by wave action |
|
 Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
3319 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 3:03:29 PM
Just did some Googling. It's the RPK-2 Viyuga rocket: Soviet design, first deployed in 1973, and still used by the Russian navy. It can be launched from a ship (as here) or by a sub and can carry a conventional or nuclear payload 28 miles at subsonic speed. |
|
 Willowwatch
Female, 30-39, Midwest US
735 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:17:35 PM
right turn Clyde |
|
Squrlz4Sale
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
3319 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 12:51:54 PM
For real entertainment value, they need to plop these things into the waters off Malibu, about 50 yards from a party of surfers. |
|
 Pavan
Male, 18-29, Europe
1 Posts
|
Saturday, March 31, 2012 7:57:20 AM
I imagine the slightly offset launch site (the heat signature is in a different location to the vessel) would help to confuse the aim of return-fire, especially for particularly accurate projectiles which would need to strike directly in order to cause the most damage (e.g. if it fired a jet of molten copper like an RPG). |
|
 Rawrg
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
935 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 10:00:19 PM
Some band of muslims is getting their sh*t rocked 5 mins after this was filmed. |
|
 OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8727 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 9:53:08 PM
how accurate can those be?
They can probably drop it through the sunroof of your car while it's moving from 200 miles away. |
|
OldOllie
Male, 50-59, Midwest US
8727 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 9:50:59 PM
The point here is that you can launch a kick-ass missile from damned near anything that floats -- fishing boats, ferries, garbage scows, whatever -- which means you can get very close to your target and take it out in a matter of seconds. |
|
 ScissorFox
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
90 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 8:56:03 PM
And finally, if A+B= - or > C...Then X is the amount of Fs I give. |
|
ScissorFox
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
90 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 8:52:35 PM
Alright, just read earlier comments about not having to design/build launch platforms and spending extra money. but...
A) This can't be American, because our government doesn't give a poo about saving money <Insert 'bitch please' meme face>.
B) and how much extra does it cost (per ordinance) to design and build each side-launch tube as opposed to just building a vertical launch platform from the ship?
C)...Profit? |
|
ScissorFox
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
90 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 8:44:01 PM
I don't understand why it needs to be launched from under water. Can't it just be launched from the surface?....Am I missing something here?! |
|
 mon360
Male, 13-17, Southern US
741 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 7:23:15 PM
I thought it said underwear missile launch...my childhood dreams will never be fulfilled! |
|
 ScottSerious
Male, 18-29, Western US
5329 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 6:00:22 PM
i wonder who was one the receiving end of those? |
|
 chunkymonkie
Male, 13-17, Canada
675 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 5:01:36 PM
how accurate can those be? |
|
 spanerbulb
Male, 30-39, Europe
889 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 4:40:25 PM
British technology at it's best. |
|
onoffonoffon
Male, 30-39, Western US
1245 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 1:13:43 PM
Now unhand that oil bitches. |
|
 Fatninja01
Male, 18-29, Australia
23995 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 12:30:00 PM
awesome |
|
 5Cats
Male, 40-49, Canada
16940 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 12:20:03 PM
Good ideas there guys! Thx. Sounds like a smart thing to make. |
|
 Buiadh
Male, 18-29, Europe
6650 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 8:42:38 AM
Take that, clouds! |
|
yucww210
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
14 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 8:27:33 AM
That's what i think too . 
|
|
 Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 8:14:41 AM
Excuse me, not "built into," the ship it's used from.
I woke up too early this morning... |
|
Altaru
Male, 18-29, Eastern US
3498 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 8:13:49 AM
PosisDas was spot on.
Since the missile ignites and takes off from under water, the ship it's built into doesn't need to use up space and cost for launch platforms that can survive the missile taking off on them.
Also, that looked about the size of a torpedo... Could probably be used in submarines too, which means just about any sub could launch missiles now instead of the special ones with vertical launch tubes like we need at present. |
|
 kinky_afr0
Male, 18-29, Europe
555 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 8:00:39 AM
no explosion = still failed attempt |
|
 CrakrJak
Male, 40-49, Midwest US
14374 Posts
|
Friday, March 30, 2012 7:51:31 AM
I was guessing that was a Tomahawk cruise missile, in a side launch tube, but I don't see that configuration listed for them. |
|
Back to Listing
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}
){kind=avatar}