Started By
Message
locked post

Cruise Missiles selection

Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:26 pm
Posted by BigPerm30
Member since Aug 2011
26047 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:26 pm
Why are we using these? This technology is 30 years old. Do we not have anything more efficient? Or did we have them laying around in stock piles?
Posted by ShortyRob
Member since Oct 2008
82116 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:27 pm to
quote:

Why are we using these? This technology is 30 years old. Do we not have anything more efficient? Or did we have them laying around in stock piles?

They're accurate and relatively cheap........ relatively
Posted by Jbird
In Bidenville with EthanL
Member since Oct 2012
73479 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:27 pm to
1.000 pound warhead, accurate and no need to over fly the airspace the Russians control.
Posted by The Baker
This is fine.
Member since Dec 2011
16185 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:28 pm to
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 7:14 pm
Posted by upgrayedd
Lifting at Tobin's house
Member since Mar 2013
134887 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:28 pm to
I think there's a new generation coming out that will be half the cost.
Posted by Navytiger74
Member since Oct 2009
50458 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:28 pm to
What'd you have in mind bigperm?
This post was edited on 4/6/17 at 9:29 pm
Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:29 pm to
No risk of a trigger happy Russian shooting down one of our jets.


Or we did use manned aircraft and they're just not telling us.
Posted by Bamatab
Member since Jan 2013
15112 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:30 pm to
quote:

Do we not have anything more efficient?

Like what?
Posted by InfantryDawg
Valhalla
Member since Oct 2013
1777 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:30 pm to
The Navy wanted to make some grass grow but also be frugal about it.
Posted by CptRusty
Basket of Deplorables
Member since Aug 2011
11740 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:31 pm to
quote:

This technology is 30 years old.


so is Syria's defensive capabilities with regards to repelling such an attack.


Actually I'm talking out of my arse...but seriously they worked, we have em...why not use em? Unless there was something cheaper which doesn't put our men in harms way?
This post was edited on 4/6/17 at 9:32 pm
Posted by Boks
Red Lodge, MT
Member since Jul 2013
1122 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:31 pm to
Low risk....but targets go boom
Posted by thelawnwranglers
Member since Sep 2007
38819 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:32 pm to
We weren't trying to kill anyone
Posted by Itismemc
LA
Member since Nov 2008
4723 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:36 pm to
They were about to expire
Posted by stinkdawg
Savannah, smoking by the gas cans
Member since Aug 2014
4072 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:38 pm to
Agreed. We should attack them with the UFOs we have.
Posted by RollTide1987
Augusta, GA
Member since Nov 2009
65147 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:40 pm to
quote:

Why are we using these? This technology is 30 years old. Do we not have anything more efficient? Or did we have them laying around in stock piles?



If it ain't broke...

The B-52 remains our most efficient long range bomber and it's been in service for over 60 years.
Posted by tigerpawl
Can't get there from here.
Member since Dec 2003
22366 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:40 pm to
quote:

This technology is 30 years old. Do we not have anything more efficient?
How is it not efficient. 1,000 mile range. 1 Meter accuracy. No American Lives at risk. Really? Inefficient?? Maybe it should mix drinks or spray Chanel No. 5?
Posted by dpd901
South Louisiana
Member since Apr 2011
7525 posts
Posted on 4/6/17 at 9:47 pm to
I agree with OP! Time to let the rail guns off the chain!





first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram