User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 11:22:44 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This makes me sad. International law does not indicate that swarming small boats are illegal. You seem to be totally unfamiliar with International Maritime Laws. Perhaps you should read more and post less. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interesting. I guess the question is, "why?" Orbiting aircraft would be a lot safer than 127mm going off all over the place. International law would indicate that swarming small boats with missiles would be illegal, too. Yet, here we are. This makes me sad. International law does not indicate that swarming small boats are illegal. You seem to be totally unfamiliar with International Maritime Laws. Perhaps you should read more and post less. With missiles would seem to be the defining characteristics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 1:02:36 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something akin to the Russian RBU system... just a cluster of short-range rockets, each boosting a BLU-108 or two would be ideal.... cheap and small enough to put on damn near any vessel. If the BLU-108 TDD can detect and fuse on the target. FIAC are faster and more maneuverable than the target BLU-108 was designed to kill. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 2:02:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the BLU-108 TDD can detect and fuse on the target. FIAC are faster and more maneuverable than the target BLU-108 was designed to kill. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Something akin to the Russian RBU system... just a cluster of short-range rockets, each boosting a BLU-108 or two would be ideal.... cheap and small enough to put on damn near any vessel. If the BLU-108 TDD can detect and fuse on the target. FIAC are faster and more maneuverable than the target BLU-108 was designed to kill. Maybe, but not by much really... and certainly not as fast and agile as other things guided munitions can hit these days. Hot motors on the water have to be really easy IR targets. And small boats should be a much "softer" kill than MBTs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 2:12:05 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With missiles would seem to be the defining characteristics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Interesting. I guess the question is, "why?" Orbiting aircraft would be a lot safer than 127mm going off all over the place. International law would indicate that swarming small boats with missiles would be illegal, too. Yet, here we are. This makes me sad. International law does not indicate that swarming small boats are illegal. You seem to be totally unfamiliar with International Maritime Laws. Perhaps you should read more and post less. With missiles would seem to be the defining characteristics. Most war ships carry missiles or torpedoes. Being armed does not constitute hostile intent. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:05:25 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With missiles would seem to be the defining characteristics. US Navy ships have missiles and routinely approach within 12 miles of the Iranian coast when transiting the SoH. Would Iran be justified in engaging them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:13:55 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Could we park one of these close enough to Syria to put the hurt on ISIS?  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVvEPTYrcXA
Only one way to find out. I'm game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:15:31 PM EDT
[#7]
Until we 1. Place more emphasis on major caliber gun fire proficiency and 2. Provide resources so that knowledge doesnt go to seed this capability will continue to stagnate. Everybody oohs and ahhs missiles and automated systems, aint nothing hollywood about a bunch of squids in a dark room reading charts 10 nm off the coast. Nor would it be productive to field a new uber projo but not allocate any for training, like they did with HE/ET and KE/ET and will probably do with MFF.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:37:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everybody oohs and ahhs missiles and automated systems, aint nothing hollywood about a bunch of squids in a dark room reading charts 10 nm off the coast. Nor would it be productive to field a new uber projo but not allocate any for training, like they did with HE/ET and KE/ET and will probably do with MFF. With valid shot criteria you don't need to burn as much NCEA, but I agree with you that NCEA is necessary for guns and the surface community has not been effective in its approach. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 3:44:47 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The real world experience of the US Navy tends to disagree.
See Storm Center by Will Rogers where Iraqi IRANIAN boghammers gave the 5" 54 calibers where the USS Elmer Montgomery a Knox Class frigate emptied a good portion of her magazine at the small craft without fending off the attack and called in the USS Vincennes for assistance. Seems the small craft are small enough they don't present much of a radar signature and nimble enough to avoid the canon. Following that event the USN put Bushmaster 20 mm cannons and additional .50 caliber machine guns on the decks. Seems the Montgomery claims 2 small boats sunk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:01:08 PM EDT
[#10]
This does tend to help mitigate the FIAC issue:
http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/press13/press26.htm |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:04:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
US Navy ships have missiles and routinely approach within 12 miles of the Iranian coast when transiting the SoH. Would Iran be justified in engaging them? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
With missiles would seem to be the defining characteristics. US Navy ships have missiles and routinely approach within 12 miles of the Iranian coast when transiting the SoH. Would Iran be justified in engaging them? depending on the circumstances, yes. As you well know. If after the Vicennes, it would be hard to argue. But I am starting to appreciate the complexity, while still not understanding why straight transit by aircraft is a requirement for a naval choke point. Is that only for Hormuz or does that apply to any straight? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:10:20 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
depending on the circumstances, yes. As you well know. If after the Vicennes, it would be hard to argue. But I am starting to appreciate the complexity, while still not understanding why straight transit by aircraft is a requirement for a naval choke point. Is that only for Hormuz or does that apply to any straight? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
With missiles would seem to be the defining characteristics. US Navy ships have missiles and routinely approach within 12 miles of the Iranian coast when transiting the SoH. Would Iran be justified in engaging them? depending on the circumstances, yes. As you well know. If after the Vicennes, it would be hard to argue. But I am starting to appreciate the complexity, while still not understanding why straight transit by aircraft is a requirement for a naval choke point. Is that only for Hormuz or does that apply to any straight? Google. Do you know how to use it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:16:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Don't get me wrong..........
I have no problem with finding a cheaper solution. But sometimes, our enemies (and their support structure) needs some (non-nuclear) convincing of this sort....... 
and/or maybe this sort of mood changing motivation. 
Aloha, Mark |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:22:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Google. Do you know how to use it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: depending on the circumstances, yes. As you well know.
If after the Vicennes, it would be hard to argue. But I am starting to appreciate the complexity, while still not understanding why straight transit by aircraft is a requirement for a naval choke point. Is that only for Hormuz or does that apply to any straight? Google. Do you know how to use it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage Hotlinking. Do 14'ers know how to do it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transit_passage |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:34:42 PM EDT
[#15]
Wow, fuckin hostile crowd.
It's like the honorary SWO tryouts or something. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:36:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But I am starting to appreciate the complexity, while still not understanding why straight transit by aircraft is a requirement for a naval choke point. Is that only for Hormuz or does that apply to any straight? Any Strait ETA - there is an exception for helicopters operating in the vicinity of transiting ships for safety purposes |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:38:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow, fuckin hostile crowd. It's like the honorary SWO tryouts or something. Maybe shoeh8ter is really shoel0v3r |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:40:58 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This does tend to help mitigate the FIAC issue: http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/images/10835874305_5c1882499b_o.jpg http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/press13/press26.htm It does bring capability, but not as much as you might think since its systems are not optimized for the maritime environment. A plus is that, as an attack helicopter, it has enhanced survivability equipment compared to multi-mission USN aircraft. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:41:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe shoeh8ter is really shoel0v3r Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow, fuckin hostile crowd. It's like the honorary SWO tryouts or something. Maybe shoeh8ter is really shoel0v3r he makes dport seem sunny and happy. I like him already. black shoes really are a grumpy bunch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:42:31 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does bring capability, but not as much as you might think since its systems are not optimized for the maritime environment. A plus is that, as an attack helicopter, it has enhanced survivability equipment compared to multi-mission USN aircraft. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This does tend to help mitigate the FIAC issue: http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/images/10835874305_5c1882499b_o.jpg http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/press13/press26.htm It does bring capability, but not as much as you might think since its systems are not optimized for the maritime environment. A plus is that, as an attack helicopter, it has enhanced survivability equipment compared to multi-mission USN aircraft. don't the brits have navalized apaches? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:44:05 PM EDT
[#21]
Bottom line - old school would be effective here. Line the ships with 40mm, 20mm, and 50 cal, but ships don't have the excess crew that they used to have. Also, employment of higher end weapons will have "adverse effects" on crews manning crew served weapons, especially say, IVO a VLS or 5" gun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:45:10 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
don't the brits have navalized apaches? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This does tend to help mitigate the FIAC issue: http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/images/10835874305_5c1882499b_o.jpg http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/press13/press26.htm It does bring capability, but not as much as you might think since its systems are not optimized for the maritime environment. A plus is that, as an attack helicopter, it has enhanced survivability equipment compared to multi-mission USN aircraft. don't the brits have navalized apaches? I think they embark them on ships and they have folding rotor heads, but that doesn't mean their combat systems are optimized for the maritime environment versus overland. Need to ask Vito. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:53:55 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
he makes dport seem sunny and happy. I like him already. black shoes really are a grumpy bunch. Good point. Sh8, are you maybe an OSCS (ret) who hates SWOs? Or are you a shoe who hates everyone, not a hater of blackshoes, but rather a blackshoe who just plain hates? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:54:03 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bottom line - old school would be effective here. Line the ships with 40mm, 20mm, and 50 cal, but ships don't have the excess crew that they used to have. Also, employment of higher end weapons will have "adverse effects" on crews manning crew served weapons, especially say, IVO a VLS or 5" gun. no shit. how many guns of all calibers on a WW2 Battleship or Destroyer? question becomes how much standoff do their salvos require? Streetfighter made a lot of sense then and now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:56:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no shit. how many guns of all calibers on a WW2 Battleship or Destroyer? question becomes how much standoff do their salvos require? Streetfighter made a lot of sense then and now. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Bottom line - old school would be effective here. Line the ships with 40mm, 20mm, and 50 cal, but ships don't have the excess crew that they used to have. Also, employment of higher end weapons will have "adverse effects" on crews manning crew served weapons, especially say, IVO a VLS or 5" gun. no shit. how many guns of all calibers on a WW2 Battleship or Destroyer? question becomes how much standoff do their salvos require? Streetfighter made a lot of sense then and now. Look at the difference between BBs or CGs fresh out of the yard in 1938-1939 versus 1944-1945 when the Navy learned painful lessons about air defense. If you can throw up a wall of lead from 4k-5k yards in, that's plenty of standoff for FIAC. Let helos or SM-2 kill FAC |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 4:59:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Seems like a hellfire/brimstone launcher or laser guided Zuni would be the ticket.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:03:38 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think they embark them on ships and they have folding rotor heads, but that doesn't mean their combat systems are optimized for the maritime environment versus overland. Need to ask Vito. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This does tend to help mitigate the FIAC issue: http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/images/10835874305_5c1882499b_o.jpg http://www.msc.navy.mil/publications/pressrel/press13/press26.htm It does bring capability, but not as much as you might think since its systems are not optimized for the maritime environment. A plus is that, as an attack helicopter, it has enhanced survivability equipment compared to multi-mission USN aircraft. don't the brits have navalized apaches? I think they embark them on ships and they have folding rotor heads, but that doesn't mean their combat systems are optimized for the maritime environment versus overland. Need to ask Vito. The British Apaches have the folding rotors, nothing more. The Brits simply wash the Apaches a lot with fresh water while embarked to keep them from melting. They didn't develop any extra software or equipment for Air to Sea fighting either. So it's still just specialized for land attack. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:05:14 PM EDT
[#28]
Holy cats, you Navy guys really get into it. Sounds like an F-35 thread. Carry on, gentlemen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:07:34 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
aviation assets to defeat FIACs  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:16:56 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
aviation assets to defeat FIACs helicopters. fixed wing equivalents (if only) I am sure you fly around and at least do the scouting. What the hell else are army apaches doing flying on navy boats? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:27:43 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems like a hellfire/brimstone launcher or laser guided Zuni would be the ticket. Not optimal for reasons I won't discuss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:29:28 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What the hell else are army apaches doing flying on navy boats? AirSea Battle Like I said, the Apaches do some things better than Navy 'hawk variants. The also do some things worse. Not every ship has helos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:31:47 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AirSea Battle Like I said, the Apaches do some things better than Navy 'hawk variants. The also do some things worse. Not every ship has helos. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What the hell else are army apaches doing flying on navy boats? AirSea Battle Like I said, the Apaches do some things better than Navy 'hawk variants. The also do some things worse. Not every ship has helos. Search for relevance |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:32:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Bring em back....
...bigger....  |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:35:09 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Search for relevance Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What the hell else are army apaches doing flying on navy boats? AirSea Battle Like I said, the Apaches do some things better than Navy 'hawk variants. The also do some things worse. Not every ship has helos. Search for relevance I omitted that out of courtesy, but the Apache does have game. It would have more game with some tweaks for the environment (terrain for the shotgunners  ).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:36:25 PM EDT
[#36]
Just put goal keeper on everything and be done with it
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:38:39 PM EDT
[#37]
Don't know a damn thing about Navy except that you all talk funny.
I suggest you mount a bunch of 120mm Abrams turrets firing XM1028 120mm Canister
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:39:49 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I omitted that out of courtesy, but the Apache does have game. It would have more game with some tweaks for the environment (terrain for the shotgunners ).Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What the hell else are army apaches doing flying on navy boats? AirSea Battle Like I said, the Apaches do some things better than Navy 'hawk variants. The also do some things worse. Not every ship has helos. Search for relevance I omitted that out of courtesy, but the Apache does have game. It would have more game with some tweaks for the environment (terrain for the shotgunners ).AH-64s are a good piece of gear. But I thin the real advantage for non-feet dry operations are crews who shoot things all the time; a 60 based direct action penetrator would probably be a better fit |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:41:47 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AH-64s are a good piece of gear. But I thin the real advantage for non-feet dry operations are crews who shoot things all the time; a 60 based direct action penetrator would probably be a better fit Need the survivability gear of a DAP/64/Cobra and fire and forget, high Pk weapons. That's all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:52:50 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They aren't known as "Naval Gang Bang" for nothing.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I had to watch movies in ANGLICO's berthing area, that was enough for me They aren't known as "Naval Gang Bang" for nothing.
2nd ANGLICO 82-85. Most impressive watching the Jersey hit the Al-m (alphabet) hills in Beirut in 84 and we are not gay, and couldn't be in the Carter-Reagan era.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:57:27 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Need the survivability gear of a DAP/64/Cobra and fire and forget, high Pk weapons. That's all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
AH-64s are a good piece of gear. But I thin the real advantage for non-feet dry operations are crews who shoot things all the time; a 60 based direct action penetrator would probably be a better fit Need the survivability gear of a DAP/64/Cobra and fire and forget, high Pk weapons. That's all. Oh - capacity too
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:57:29 PM EDT
[#42]
For FIAC work, the Brimstone missile would fit the bill perfectly.
It's currently being developed into a ship launched variant and because the missile can be fired in fire and forget mode, it is just what the doctor ordered for ships that are too small/inexpensive for AEGIS. For NGFS, the OP's article is right. The MK71 8" gun project needs to be brought out of mothballs and finished. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 5:59:02 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For FIAC work, the Brimstone missile would fit the bill perfectly. It would appear to. I'd like to see some more realistic testing that what's on the you tubes. Brinstone has the nice ability to go on TACAIR too. AGM-114 ain't got time of dat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 6:01:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The US Navy had decided that Harpoon and Slam type missiles trump guns for shelling type operations. It does cost over a million dollars a shot though. For incoming defense they have Phalanx. Which has never defeated an incoming anti-ship type weapon, like it was designed to do. But it has failed in action. And it has a long list of friendly fire kills. In an operational test I conducted, a Spru-can killed the last of the BQM-34E/Ts, supersonic, low altitude, with the 5-inch gun shooting VT-FRAG. Phalanx works very well too (as the first line of damage control) - provided it is turned on, and in Auto You can't count as a "failure" if the firing integrity key is out and the sector holdback tool is in place, or if it is in manual control mode and the operator is too slow - or in the case of STARK, in the head. We determined the real key to point defense against supersonic sea skimming ASCMs is multiple layers of defense.... at the time, Sparrow, RAM, Guns, CIWS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 6:02:09 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Were you actually in the Navy? The Mk38 is a 25mm cannon. The same cannon as is on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Navy at least was smart enough to take an off the shelf solution. As for .50 cals, there were .50s mounted on decks as far back as WWII, non-stop. See USS Pueblo and USS Liberty incidents. You also don't know much about the IR655 incident. The Vincennes took tactical control of Montgomery and charged off after the Boghammers that supposedly fired on Vincennes' helo. I'm starting to doubt you ever were in the Navy if you get basic facts such as these wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
firing trials of the 127/64 of the FREMM frigate Carlo Bergamini. The first image shows the excellent capability of engagement at very short range, which can seriously ruin the day for suicide boats and similar threats. The real world experience of the US Navy tends to disagree. See Storm Center by Will Rogers where Iraqi boghammers gave the 5" 54 calibers where the USS Elmer Montgomery a Knox Class frigate emptied a good portion of her magazine at the small craft without fending off the attack and called in the USS Vincennes for assistance. Seems the small craft are small enough they don't present much of a radar signature and nimble enough to avoid the canon. Following that event the USN put Bushmaster 20 mm cannons and additional .50 caliber machine guns on the decks. Were you actually in the Navy? The Mk38 is a 25mm cannon. The same cannon as is on the Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Navy at least was smart enough to take an off the shelf solution. As for .50 cals, there were .50s mounted on decks as far back as WWII, non-stop. See USS Pueblo and USS Liberty incidents. You also don't know much about the IR655 incident. The Vincennes took tactical control of Montgomery and charged off after the Boghammers that supposedly fired on Vincennes' helo. I'm starting to doubt you ever were in the Navy if you get basic facts such as these wrong. Put your money where you mouth is ... please please please! I can come up with an amazing massive mountain of cash by next week and when you put up matching funds I'm willing to meet you any place on the planet and prove to you in any logical/rational way that I was in the Navy. Please. (I so rarely beg)
Yeah 25 mm, the CIWS is 20mm. Unfortunately I was never on a small boy that had the canon but I still should have remembered from my writing of the ESWS guide in the mid-1980's. 
I had lunch with "Wild Bill" Rogers in San Diego (while in the Navy) which would have been 1989 or 1990 so in the ~25 years I might have forgotten some of his story and going from memories that old is never good. I didn't say that the ships mounted .50's for the first time I said additional ones. Carriers had four - two forward and two aft on the port and starboard sides in the early 1980's when I was first assigned aboard USS Midway. My last two ships (USS Abraham Lincoln and USS Carl Vinson) had prepared mounts for several times that as a result of that lesson learned. Following the attack on the USS Cole in 1987 we were happy to have those positions ready on USS Abe Lincoln. I'll have to pull the Rogers book out (which he autographed for me) and find the portions about the frigate dancing with ... (again 25 year old memory) ... five or seven boghammers who had hit the frigate with small arms fire and IIRC even some RPG rockets. The frigate had expended enough 5" 54 rounds that they were concerned about running out IIRC. Knox class frigates were bad ass little guys for their size and age but nothing compared to the Tico cruisers like the Vincennes. So I missed the chaingun by 5mm and that's enough for you to attempt to call my service into question? 
Hopefully your balls and bankroll is as big as your mouth. Paul EMCM (SW/AW) USN (ret) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 6:05:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
helicopters. fixed wing equivalents (if only) I am sure you fly around and at least do the scouting. What the hell else are army apaches doing flying on navy boats? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
aviation assets to defeat FIACs helicopters. fixed wing equivalents (if only) I am sure you fly around and at least do the scouting. What the hell else are army apaches doing flying on navy boats? Not reactive enough. Great when you are transiting the SoH ad are set up defensively, but what do you do the other 99% of the time. In the Gulf and GOO threats can sneak up on you very easily. I need something I can turn on NOW! and engage a threat. Thought process should be similar to why you CCW as a civilian. The time window from threat recognition to defensive action is very short. e.g., High volume fire KEET rounds, Block 1B CIWS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 6:10:34 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
cheaper aircraft, with longer loiter operating from airfield ubiquitous in that region at least during Phase zero. Navy has C-130s. Harvest HAWK? P8s have lots of nifty shit. Or, trust to the AF to provide. ASB! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
aviation assets to defeat FIACs Not every ship has them USN helos are not optimized for that job Leakers happen TACAIR in the SoH (Phase 0) is an iffy prospect Integrated fires FTW cheaper aircraft, with longer loiter operating from airfield ubiquitous in that region at least during Phase zero. Navy has C-130s. Harvest HAWK? P8s have lots of nifty shit. Or, trust to the AF to provide. ASB! Trust the AF? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 6:11:28 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
e.g., High volume fire KEET rounds, Block 1B CIWS. Better choices exist |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 6:13:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would appear to. I'd like to see some more realistic testing that what's on the you tubes. Brinstone has the nice ability to go on TACAIR too. AGM-114 ain't got time of dat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
For FIAC work, the Brimstone missile would fit the bill perfectly. It would appear to. I'd like to see some more realistic testing that what's on the you tubes. Brinstone has the nice ability to go on TACAIR too. AGM-114 ain't got time of dat. The Navy is already working on getting these added the F-18, so the ability to swat Chinese aluminum FACs is a given.
I have a hard time imagining NavAir will let the missile into inventory if it doesn't work. They seem to still take their job seriously, unlike the SW side of the Navy. The real question is if the SW side of Navy will be willing to eat crow, admit the original LCS concept is dead and reduce the tonnage/space for the modular section on the LCS so as to be able to pack a decent number of these missiles on board. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2014 6:13:18 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not reactive enough.
Great when you are transiting the SoH ad are set up defensively, but what do you do the other 99% of the time. In the Gulf and GOO threats can sneak up on you very easily. I need something I can turn on NOW! and engage a threat. Thought process should be similar to why you CCW as a civilian. The time window from threat recognition to defensive action is very short. e.g., High volume fire KEET rounds, Block 1B CIWS. You don't overwatch on Craig's List deals, bro? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
