Update on Mystery Missile Launch in California

Discussion in 'Politics' started by righteousdude2, Nov 22, 2010.

  1. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,460
    Likes Received:
    136
    Bigger problems than great whites off the coast of California???

    Please don't criticize me on this post. I received it from a brother in Costa Mesa, and he claims to know the brother who wrote this.

    If any portion of this letter is valid and true, America witnessed something that should cause all of us to take notice and DEMAND the WH do more than the daily spin they are becoming so good at.

    November, 2010

    FC2- ANDREW/ RET

    Hello Steve. Finally there is something that has occurred in which I am actually an expert and qualified to give a real answer.

    I am a retired U.S. Navy Fire Control Technician, who is platform certified in the gun and missile systems on board Adams class guided missile destroyers, I have also worked with the Navy's Harpoon, Tomahawk and ASROC missile systems. (Fire Control Techs operate, maintain and repair the computer, radar and peripheral systems used to launch and guide the various naval weapon systems, we are the guys who "PUSH THE BUTTON")

    Anyway, what I saw in the recent video concerning the object 30 miles off the coast of CA. is blatantly a foreign made, Large Cruise or ICBM missile, being launched by a sub-surface aquatic platform. First I know its a large missile because it did not exhibit the typical "corkscrewing" trajectory of a beam riding missile as it trys to acquire the targeting beam. This tells me its a Big Boy with a complete guidance system installed in it, what is nicknamed a "fire and forget" missile, as once its launched its internal guidance system takes over and there is no real need for external guidance.

    Secondly, I'm fairly confident its not one of ours, as the vapor trail appears "dirty". It looks brownish. I have personally been involved in (5) SM2 missile launches, and (2) ASROC missile launches, and have been on safety observation for at least 15 more launches of Harpoons, Tomahawks and other missiles. We put a lot of sweat and money into our "birds" and part of that is the fuel cells, they burn very clean, a whitish-blue infact, not a dirty blackish brown. That missile had rather crude fuel cells, which tells me its not one of ours.

    I bet the brass in Washington is freaked out big time, because of what I know of our "defenses" they should really have had a pretty good idea this thing was sitting there, and they should have been watching it, not only that, the moment it broke the surface of the water and ignited, our early warning Doppler should have picked it up, and relayed the info to NORAD, and the CAP units flying patrol over the country...

    Any high ranking expert who believes this is a condensation trail off of a commercial airliner is lying or stupid. I hope you hear from other Fire Control Techs who saw the same thing I did!

    I forgot something; as any Fire control Tech or Gunners mate will verify, the protocols to launch a missile are so complex, there is no way this was an "accidental" launch. I do not want to share too much info, but there is no "one red button" to launch a missile, that's all Hollywood B#%@ S*&#. Yes two keys are turned to arm the system, but it takes at least three other things to occur in proper sequence to launch a bird, so that's at least 5 people all doing something at the right time. Its impossible to accidentally launch a missile!

    FC2- ANDREW/ RET


    I checked this letter out on Snopes and Truth Checker, and it has not been evaluated yet, which is why I waited until today to post this. I figured that if this was not true, someone would've run it through one of the truth checker systems since the November 10 post date.

    I pray that this is not true, but if it is, it may be a good thing that someone in the business stepped up and commented.

    Shalom,

    Pastor Paul :type:
     
    #1 righteousdude2, Nov 22, 2010
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 22, 2010
  2. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    I worked on the Eastern Space and Missile Center and have seen many missile launches.

    This was a Missile Launch. Period.

    My son dug this up:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492804/The-uninvited-guest-Chinese-sub-pops-middle-U-S-Navy-exercise-leaving-military-chiefs-red-faced.html

    It details that a Diesel Chinese Boat infiltrated a US manuvers to the point it could have launched torpedoes and sunk our Carrier!

    It wasn't all that long ago that a US firm compromised decavitation technology to the Japanese. Cavitation is one of the more important ways our Accoustic Listening Systems note and track enemy subs.

    This was most likely a Chinese sub, but could have also been a N. Korean diesel boat. Either one of which could have had a "can" on the rear deck for a launcher.

    The Chinese are intent on reclaiming Taiwan one way or the other. Which would cripple our semi-conductor industry and hurt us about as bad as them calling our debt.

    Right now they're warning us off... But, the missile could have just as easily gone inland...
     
  3. freeatlast

    freeatlast
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    10,295
    Likes Received:
    0
    Paul if this is true I wonder why this guy has not went to the media? If he needs a contact get him in contact with me I can point him in the right direction, but he will have to be able to back up his story.
     
  4. matt wade

    matt wade
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2009
    Messages:
    6,156
    Likes Received:
    76
  5. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Another issue with the it being the contrail of a jet is that there was a clear Flame Marker at it's head. Brighter than any reflection could have been. And, not a military jet on Afterburner.

    The FC Tech assumes it was a sub-surface launched missile. I don't. That would have required a Nuclear Powered boat and *that* we would have heard coming a 100 miles away. Of that I am confident.

    However, a diesel boat with a waterproof "can" on it's after deck, similar, though larger, than used by the Japanese in WW2 could have surfaced off of Catalina and launched.

    A well drilled team could have pulled it off as It wasn't a hostile launch. All they needed to do is get it off the deck. Didn't really need to aim it to achieve their goals... This time...
     
  6. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    OK, "There's a reason they are called rockets'... Yes, my little Estes Model Rockets go really really fast.

    But, all the "Missile" launches I've seen from Vandenburg or off Cape Kennedy, while fast, weren't any faster than the video shows...

    Believe what you will...

    I'd like to sell you a bridge in Brooklyn or some nice farmland in the middle of Florida... :smilewinkgrin:
     
  7. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,460
    Likes Received:
    136
    Thanks

    I passed this info on to my friend who knows the source of this latest letter, and he will let me know if there is any interest on his behalf. I do know that his letter has been sent to a ton of media outlets on the West Coast, and as of yet, there has been now bites to look into his info.

    I can't help but think the fed has thrown a blanket over this story, and the media is currently complying. :sleeping_2:
     
  8. Aaron

    Aaron
    Expand Collapse
    Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    15,646
    Likes Received:
    223
    This and now Korea. Wouldn't have happened under McCain.
     
  9. righteousdude2

    righteousdude2
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2007
    Messages:
    10,460
    Likes Received:
    136
    Or, Bush!

    You are so right, sir!:applause:
     
  10. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yep. He may have already blown up the world by now.
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    I have a couple questions about the letter. First, the Adams class guided missile destroyers were all decommissioned decades ago. The last one 18 years ago.

    Second, he signs his letter as FC2 Ret. If he was retired after 20 years of service why was he only an E-5 (FC-2)?

    Also the Adams class destroyers carried Tarter SAMs (Surface to Air Missiles for shooting down aircraft), which was replaced in the late 1960s with the SM1 system, and the Harpoon anti-ship missile system.

    None of these are ICBMs, nor even surface to surface missiles unless you consider the Harpoon to be surface to surface, so I question the ability of the writer to see an exhaust trail and positively identify it.

    On another note, SpiritualMadMan
    I am not sure you know what you are talking about. Firstly there are non-nuclear SSBs, secondly an SSBN would be as quiet or quieter than an SSB or an SS. In fact our current SSBNs cannot be tracked because they are so quiet. They can stay on station with the reactor in natural circulation, with reactor coolant pumps shut off, and the only way to detect them is with an active ping or by tracking the "black hole" in the water because the SSBN is quieter than the ambient noise levels of the ocean. Unless there was a SURTASS equipped ASW ship overhead or a P3 in the air close by detection would have been almost impossible. The Chinese have had SSBNs since 1981.
     
  12. SpiritualMadMan

    SpiritualMadMan
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2003
    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well, let's see... a "boomer" goes out and basically sits on the bottom so they can remain stealthy.

    A Nuclear boat with the reactor shut down and running on batteries *is* as quiet as a diesel boat.

    However, with the plant running there are several orders of magnitude of detections available that running on battery doesn't allow.

    To boost an ICBM through x number of feet of water and have it completely clear the surface before igniting requires an amount of power that is not available to a diesel boat or while running on battery.

    Hence my postulation that it was a surface launch from a diesel boat.

    SSN's can launch Torpedo diameter cruise missiles. But, not ICBM's.

    When we built the Reactor Plant Training Boats now at Goose Creek, SC I had joked about leaving four tubes in Sherwood Forest and having a Fast Attack Boomer. :)

    If they exist, I don't know about them...

    Obviously, there may be weapons systems that I am not aware of. But, I doubt that either the Chinese or N. Koreans have that level of sophistication or technology... Yet...
     
  13. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,165
    Likes Received:
    1,311
    Uh, well, no. They go in circles, orbiting their station.
    They don't shut the reactor down. They shut the reactor coolant pumps down and run on natural circulation.
    I am not sure what that means. Most diesel boats, even on battery, are louder than Nukes.
    Uh, no. The UGM 133 Trident II is launched using the pressure of expanding gas in the launch tube. It has nothing to do with available power. Several nations have used diesel boats as launch platforms for SLBMs. The Russian Zulu (IV), Golf (I) and (II) were SLBM subs and the Golfs were sold to the Russians.
    See above. The Chinese have been putting SSBNs to sea since 1981.
     

Share This Page

Loading...