[extracted] New(?) 9-11 stuff

It's also worth mentioning that the soruce for the 50km+ range talks about the missiles as exclusively surface-to-air missiles. There is no mention of the operating range for the surface-to-surface use case anywhere in the references so even if it does require line of sight from a ship there's no actual evidence that it's capable of operating beyond the ~20km that would probably be the upper limit in that case.

I mentioned that I agreed with you there. The max range is irrelevant there, in the same manner that if we built a ship with a mile high mast.

Hmmmmm. Back in the day (a week ago) y'all put in minimal effort frantically googling.

Now we just cut and paste tosh with literally no effort.

Whether the earth is flat or we find out that the earth is actually one tenth the size that we previously thought, the missile is still capable of the same travel distance, where it lands and its effectiveness is obviously another story.

...there seems to be a lot of effort put forth to increase line of sight when none of this is really necessary.

Guidance system for block 1 - semi active radar homing. Requires line of sight for radio signal from launcher to target. If the radio signal is blocked by a body of water and sea bed then it does not work. Its range would be limited to around 10 miles or so.

A flat earther or a conspiritard. Which are you?

And there is the rebuttal right on cue.

This is the only way out for globetarding. Simply lie about surface to surface capability, which is clearly stated, or else the company themselves are caught in a lie.

There are other factors as weapons expert dweeb 57 has pointed out. But earth curve necessarily limits range to much less than 35 miles.

LINE OF SIGHT.

Helllllooooooooo? They said line of sight. The launcher REQUIRES line of sight to the target. For semi active radar homing. The guidance system. For the sea sparrow. Block 1.

Surface to surface.

Line of sight.

35 miles.

Earth curve? No.

So am I to understand that this company a). knows that the horizon is usually, what, about 4-5 miles away and b). claims that their missile works for at almost 10 times that distance with line of sight, and you are the first person to question this discrepancy?

Billy, be honest, is this like that time you claimed everyone was ignoring blatant evidence of space lasers by showing us pictures of dust?

Next you will realise the content of a hot dog d2.

Horse cock, right?

I haven't lied about the surface-to-surface capabilities of the missile, I'm saying that you're taking the range stated for the surface-to-air capability and claiming that that's the range for surface-to-surface, which as far as I can find is not justified by anything in any of the references on that wiki page.

That's impossible, Billy doesn't make mistakes.

I'm just randomly watching some "sovereign citizen in court" clips and I can definitely imagine Billy being one of these tits.

Judge: Name?
Billy: I am the special entity overseer guarantor trustee making a special appearance on behalf of the named party Mr. Billy Shears...

Wait, you still pay council tax? That must be expensive in that London.

Lmao you for real? Just like there is no difference between a projectile at rest and a projectile going at 130mph, right?

Yes, taxes are a bit of a drain, but someone has to pay for your needle exchange programmes.

Not according to the Principle of Relativity.

I almost made a joke in my previous post about you finding it hard to understand that things have different capabilities when used in different ways - I didn't expect your reply to make that joke a reality.

Ah yes, is that the one whereby your parents are related?

He literally does not understand that an object in motion causes more damage to a target than the same object resting on it, he just blindly applies some formula he saw in a physics textbook hoping it's the right one. So it's not really a huge surprise.

Also worth noting that surface to surface range can be increased by coordinating with AWACS or satellites. It's beyond hysterical that he's trying to use stats he found on wikipedia for this purpose.

From reading the various responses, I'm beginning to suspect that something along these lines has happened:

1. The missiles require line of sight when not augmented by datalink, satellites, etc.
2. The theoretical range of the missile is 35 miles... when 35 miles is line of sight, i.e. surface to air., provided the target is high enough/far enough.
3. When surface to surface, it's range limited by the horizon or requires augmentation by data link etc.
4. Billy has seen the theoretical 35 mile figure, ignored all the above, and gone "behold, evidence the Earth is flat".

Or the heat-seeking missiles that don’t rely on line of sight.