Dude, only it was YOU who make the statement that US cannot intercept anything that does not have a straight pathway. I am not the one that come up with that idea.
And I've proven how the US cannot while you have yet to disprove it.
And in fact, MANY Houthi missile WERE IN FACT INTERCEPTED by the US and Israeli. As in these news suggested
So what?
And those are recorded facts, so no, THE ONUS IS ON YOU TO PROOF THAT US CANNOT INTERCEPT HOUTHI MISSILE because it has an other than straight flight paths.
I didn't make this statement so why do I have to prove it?
You're poor reading skill leads you to this end.
And that's why I am NOT the one that bring up this, YOU DID.
But then you did not know if that is 1 on 1 hit, so how can you comment on one way or otherwise?
I didn't comment on it, but you did. You are the one who commented on it: bringing up efficiency, using a hypothetical 20:1 scenario. Moot point.
Dude, seriously?
You really do think if Houthi go around and attacking anyone, not just Saudi ship, the world is NOT going to response?? And you think the world will turn on Saudi when everyone's ship is attack??
Dude, you are delusional to the max......
You can think whatever you like - at the end of the day, it is just conjecture devoid of reality, like the rest of your arguments here.
Conjecture vs reality. You bank on conjecture. If this, if that, if this, if that, will happen, would have, etc.
Maybe you need to go back and see what Saudi had, if you think 150,000 soldier and 100 warplane is Saudi Full force, you either cannot count or just outright stupid.
Saudi Land forces are 75,000.
Total force is 250,000, out of which 41,000 is navy and 25,000 is air force.
They sent their entire land army to Yemen and even more.
If you think KSA will abandons all of its positions including the dangerous Iraq and Jordan borders, all its positions around the Persian Gulf to counter Iran, all of its oil terminals and shipping lanes, and go 100% full force into Yemen, then I am sorry to say mate but
you are dumb af.
Nothing to cede as there are no argument in it
Again, you were not talking about being trackable, you are talking about flightpath, RCS and flightpath are two different concept.
Exactly. RCS and flightpath are two difference concepts which allows US ADS to shoot down maneuverable aircraft but not maneuverable missiles.
Remember: you are the one to bring up maneuverable aircraft.
Sure what?
Both of which just show an attack happens. It show nothing,
Are you drunk or retarded? Lol. Do you even read what you write?
Shows an attack.
Show nothing.
These are contradictory statements.
Which one is it?
Again, if they can't be shot down like you said because it was not in a direct flight path, please explain this
Straight line trajectory.
Dude, did you even know what is "Parabola" it mean a curved flight path, the image show multiple stage of Parabola flight path, which is what you need to ground hugging navigation, it WILL NEVER BE a Straight flightpath becasue you have obstable both natural and man made, on earth.
A parabola rises/depresses
once and then it's vector continues to infinity in the opposite direction. This is basic mathematics. What you're looking at in the image is a variation of a sine wave, not a parabola. You will learn this when you reach highschool.
Obviously it hasn't entered your brain yet the idea that a missile can also move left/right instead of just up/down. Your mind is stuck in 2-D.
Again, what's RCS has to do with it? You aren't talking about missile cannot be shoot down because it has low RCS, you were talking about missile cannot be shot down because it does not have a forward and straight flight paths.
I was talking about missiles until
you brought up the question of
how to shoot maneuverable aircraft. That's what RCS is for.
Yes, I can learn how INSANE you are
@gambit, I don't think I ever say this, but I found someone who are more delusional than Chinese Physics........Come and look at this.
Your train of logic derailed long time ago.
Better call for moral support.
Please do not ever quote me again, I don't talk to crazy people.
hahah. I'm right, you're wrong, don't quote me again.