# OT: Military question of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** Macro Economic Trends and Risks\ **Created:** [April 9, 2022, 10:57pm UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010 "2022-04-09T22:57:41Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![OrmontUS](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/ormontus/32/3681_2.png) [@OrmontUS](https://discussion.fool.com/u/OrmontUS)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2022, 10:57pm UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/1 "2022-04-09T22:57:41Z")
(The word “day” being figurative right now as it’s 5:45 in the morning and dark outside) If the Russian fleet is bottled up in the Black Sea by Turkey’s closing of the Bosporus to military traffic, and if the fleet has been firing cruise missiles making it a legitimate military target, is the reason that we haven’t given Ukraine appropriate shore-based anti-ship weapons because: They don’t exist? They are too expensive? They are too complex to be operated by untrained Ukrainians? Their technology is too secret to risk falling into Russia’s hands? It would be deemed that the US had attacked Russia if we gave the weapons to Ukraine? It would escalate significant retaliation because the emasculation of Russia by the loss of its fleet would be embarrassing? All of the above, none of the above or some of the above? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![OrmontUS](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/ormontus/32/3681_2.png) [@OrmontUS](https://discussion.fool.com/u/OrmontUS)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2022, 10:59pm UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/2 "2022-04-09T22:59:06Z")
Or maybe physically to large to logistically move into theatre? Jeff ---
**Author:** ![waterfell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/waterfell/32/8050_2.png) [@waterfell](https://discussion.fool.com/u/waterfell)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2022, 11:30pm UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/3 "2022-04-09T23:30:20Z")
## _…is the reason that we haven’t given Ukraine appropriate shore-based anti-ship weapons because:_ _They don’t exist?_ _They are too expensive?.._ Boris Johnson recently committed the UK to supply Ukraine with anti-ship missiles. This might have been done with US/NATO consultation. [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/09/boris-johnson-…](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/09/boris-johnson-pledges-to-send-more-arms-during-surprise-visit-to-kyiv) ## **Last night No 10 said Britain would send 120 armoured vehicles and new anti-ship missile systems to Ukraine. The missiles can do serious damage to Russian warships and could be used to tackle the Russian navy siege of Black Sea ports. The UK pledged £100m in military assistance last week, including another 800 anti-tank missiles, more anti-aircraft weapons, “suicide drones”, which hover over the battlefield before attacking a target, and helmets, body armour and night-vision goggles.** The Royal Navy had a certain experience with anti-ship missiles during the Falklands War, IIRC. - Pete ---
**Author:** ![syke6](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/syke6/32/26265_2.png) [@syke6](https://discussion.fool.com/u/syke6)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2022, 11:36pm UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/4 "2022-04-09T23:36:15Z")
_If the Russian fleet is bottled up in the Black Sea by Turkey’s closing of the Bosporus to military traffic, and if the fleet has been firing cruise missiles making it a legitimate military target, is the reason that we haven’t given Ukraine appropriate shore-based anti-ship weapons because:_ The West’s response to Putin and Ukraine has been shameful for a long time. Part of it is there is a good argument to be made that the best way to manage Putin to engage him. Part of it is Putin has gas and oil that the world economy needs and don’t want to upset the apple car. Part of it is naked political interest “I would like you to do us a favor, though.” That said, the UK is sending Ukraine US built Harpoon anti-ship missiles, which are effective over the horizon and can be launched from shore. [https://tickernews.co/uk-to-send-game-changer-anti-ship-harp…](https://tickernews.co/uk-to-send-game-changer-anti-ship-harpoon-missiles-to-ukraine-but-what-are-they/) ---
**Author:** ![captainccs](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/captainccs/32/3775_2.png) [@captainccs](https://discussion.fool.com/u/captainccs)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2022, 3:35am UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/5 "2022-04-10T03:35:59Z")
_The West’s response to Putin and Ukraine has been shameful for a long time._ The West has to walk a fine line between decimating the Russian military (in the original 10% Roman sense) but not to the point of making them launch nukes. I’m still hoping Putin gets removed from within. The Captain ---
**Author:** ![tim443](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/tim443/32/3194_2.png) [@tim443](https://discussion.fool.com/u/tim443)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2022, 8:11am UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/6 "2022-04-10T08:11:14Z")
_Thank you for recommending this post to our Best of feature._ _…_ _The Royal Navy had a certain experience with anti-ship missiles during the Falklands War, IIRC._ _- Pete_ There is a huge variety of anti-ship missiles these days … including some very good Russian and Chinese versions … The Chinese DF-21D “Carrier Killer” was sold to the Saudis some years back but they now have an enhanced DF-26D with longer range. Anymouse \ ---
**Author:** ![MrPlunger](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/mrplunger/32/360_2.png) [@MrPlunger](https://discussion.fool.com/u/MrPlunger)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2022, 9:45am UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/7 "2022-04-10T09:45:45Z")
_The Royal Navy had a certain experience with anti-ship missiles during the Falklands War, IIRC._ French Exocets. Took out a large freighter after being diverted from one of the carriers by chaff chucked out from … Prince Andrew’s Sea King helicopter. Are they now obsolete? ---
**Author:** ![tim443](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/tim443/32/3194_2.png) [@tim443](https://discussion.fool.com/u/tim443)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2022, 5:34am UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/8 "2022-04-11T05:34:21Z")
_French Exocets._ _Took out a large freighter after being diverted from one of the carriers by chaff chucked out from … Prince Andrew’s Sea King helicopter._ _ **Are they now obsolete?** _ Generally such weapons are upgraded to newer versions rather than being completely replaced … mostly because the warships are built to handle them and the service life of classes of navy ships can be very long. [[http://www.military-today.com/missiles/exocet.htm#:~:text=Th](http://www.military-today.com/missiles/exocet.htm#:~:text=Th)…]([http://www.military-today.com/missiles/exocet.htm#:~:text=The%20Exocet%20(French%20for%20“flying,missile%20is%20still%20in%20production)](http://www.military-today.com/missiles/exocet.htm#:~:text=The%20Exocet%20(French%20for%20%E2%80%9Cflying,missile%20is%20still%20in%20production)). _The Exocet (French for “flying fish”) is a French anti-ship missile developed in the 1970s. While lacking in warhead size and range, this “battle-tested” \*\*\* missile is still in production. The Exocet is cheap, effective, and can be launched from submarines, ships, and aircraft._ \*\*\* - All weapons producers will go to great lengths to add “battle-tested” to their literature on their products for obvious reasons. I’m pretty sure that is at least partly why some very good brand new equipment is showing up on the battlefields of Ukraine right now? A story from long ago that happened while my ship was nearby as part of the standing NATO Fleet at the time. McDonnell Douglas eventually admitted fault. If I understood the story as part of the testing they had put a fire command into the missile they had upgraded then packed it up and sent it back to the owner without clearing the circuit. During training the Danes turned on the fire control computers and off went their missile. Much comedy ensued as none of the other NATO ships wanted to be anywhere near HDMS Peder Skram for the rest of their time with the fleet. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982\_Harpoon\_missile\_misfire\_i…](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Harpoon_missile_misfire_incident) Tim ---
**Author:** ![steve203](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/motleyfoolfree/user_avatar/discussion.fool.com/steve203/32/3302_2.png) [@steve203](https://discussion.fool.com/u/steve203)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2022, 11:14am UTC](https://discussion.fool.com/t/ot-military-question-of-the-day/65010/9 "2022-04-11T11:14:05Z")
_\>\>Are they now obsolete?\<\<_ _Generally such weapons are upgraded to newer versions rather than being completely replaced_ Example of what Tim talks about: AIM-9 Sidewinder: entered service in 1956. 80 combat kills in Nam. Used by the Brits in the Falklands. Used by the USN during it’s incursion in the Gulf of Sidra. Still in production today, updated to the “X” version. Steve