User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:21:07 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Admiral Harris wants the Army to have its own anti-ship missiles Harry Harris, the admiral in charge of American forces in the Asia-Pacific, wants to see the U.S. Army sink ships. That's according to [url=https://news.usni.org/2017/02/21/pacom-commander-harris-wants-army-sink-ships-expand-battle-networks]U.S. Naval Institute News[/url], which covered the admiral's appearance during a San Diego conference on seapower.
During a speech at [url=http://www.westconference.org/West17/Public/Enter.aspx]WEST 2017[/url], Admiral Harris said he told his Army subordinate at Pacific Command he would like to see "Army land forces conduct an exercise to sink a ship." The Army currently does not have an anti-ship missile, and Army howitzers and rocket launchers are, for now, anyway, incapable of striking moving targets at sea. The proposal to give the Army anti-ship missiles goes back to the days of the Army Coastal Artillery Corps. Active between 1901 and 1950, the [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Coast_Artillery_Corps]Coastal Artillery Corps[/url] protected the United States from invasion via a vast network of fortified artillery outposts that protected both coastlines, Hawaii, and the Panama Canal Zone. The advent of nuclear weapons and the threat of nuclear bombers and missiles shifted the threat to the continental U.S. to the air, and the Coastal Artillery Corps was disbanded. All of this having been said, the Army may not actually want the Coastal Artillery mission. On one hand, it allows the Army to be operationally relevant in the Pacific where there are not a lot of places for land battles. On the other hand, establishing new Coastal Artillery units would siphon off money and personnel away from the Army's core mission of fighting battles on land. The Army just established six [url=http://breakingdefense.com/2017/02/army-builds-advisor-brigades-counterinsurgency-is-here-to-stay/]Security Assistance Brigades[/url] focused on counterinsurgency and only [url=http://www.military.com/daily-news/2017/02/07/most-army-brigades-navy-planes-combat-ready-leaders.html]three of its 58 combat brigades are ready to fight[/url]. Army leaders may not be eager to spread the service even thinner than it is now. Who thinks that the Army has any interest in the coastal artillery mission? Bienvenue a la fiesta amigo. You don't need coastal artillery units. YOu simply need CDCM that can fit on a HIMARS/MLRS chassis and integration with existing 14J and scout aviation units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:22:12 PM EDT
[#2]
The Argies mounted Exocets on the back of trucks at one point. I can see mounting a Harpoon system on the back of a Deuce and a Half for cheap.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:27:00 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Argies mounted Exocets on the back of trucks at one point. I can see mounting a Harpoon system on the back of a Deuce and a Half for cheap. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:27:07 PM EDT
[#4]
Army has helicopters and mobile missile platforms. Why can't either of these be used to complete this task?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:27:48 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bienvenue a la fiesta amigo. You don't need coastal artillery units. YOu simply need CDCM that can fit on a HIMARS/MLRS chassis and integration with existing 14J and scout aviation units. If you went "amico" instead of amigo, you could have worked French, Spanish, and Italian into that sentence. You may not even need scout aviation units - you have P-3C, P-8A, and Triton already. You just need to be tied in to the sensor via Link 16, voice, or SIPR chat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:29:15 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Army has helicopters and mobile missile platforms. Why can't either of these be used to complete this task? Lol. That probably won't work out very well for the helos - if you're talking about them carrying ASCMs. As sensors, maybe, but now you're talking about an Apache providing ID of a surface combatant at range. Can their radar do SAR mapping? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:31:21 PM EDT
[#7]
The Taliban have ships now?!?!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:31:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Billy Mitchell is vindicated
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:33:08 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Harpoon is so 80's.... Hezbollah picked off an Israeli frigate with a ChiCom C-802, and some dirtbags in Yemen did the same to a Saudi ship. Still, it's hard to imagine the Army being in a situation so bad they need coastal artillery. If the capability is really needed it seems simpler to give the Navy or AF a duece and a half to mount a weapon they already have than to give a new weapon system to the Army because they've already got trucks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:36:17 PM EDT
[#10]
Gunner, Sabot, Landing ship, 2000 meters, one o' clock, fire would be pretty bonerific.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:40:14 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Billy Mitchell is vindicated |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:41:13 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you went "amico" instead of amigo, you could have worked French, Spanish, and Italian into that sentence. You may not even need scout aviation units - you have P-3C, P-8A, and Triton already. You just need to be tied in to the sensor via Link 16, voice, or SIPR chat. which 14Js are through sentinal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:42:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Taliban have ships now?!?! The camel is known as the "ship of the desert"... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:43:41 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hezbollah picked off an Israeli frigate with a ChiCom C-802, and some dirtbags in Yemen did the same to a Saudi ship. Still, it's hard to imagine the Army being in a situation so bad they need coastal artillery. If the capability is really needed it seems simpler to give the Navy or AF a duece and a half to mount a weapon they already have than to give a new weapon system to the Army because they've already got trucks. Sure the Navy and Air Force can do it. Just issue ground launched anti ship missiles to existing rocket artillery units in the Air Force and Navy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:44:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Gunner, Sabot, Landing ship, 2000 meters, one o' clock, fire would be pretty bonerific. MPAT Ground would work as well. I doubt landing ships are heavily armored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:44:24 PM EDT
[#16]
His statement on the "Canal Zone" is interesting since the Chi-coms control the canal...and if we are going to world war against anyone with a navy.. they'd be my first guess...
I do like the idea of us taking OUR canal back though... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:45:45 PM EDT
[#17]
My Great Grandfather was with the U.S. Army Coast Artillery during WWI. I dont know much more than that. I do think it is a ridiculous idea today. There are better ways to put an enemy vessel into the deep, while the Army continues to spend money on fighting and winning the ground campaign.
Does say something for the Navy though, if an Admiral believes he needs help with keeping enemy vessels from America's shores. Further, it can be argued that the Army devised a new way to do that in July of 1921, courtesy of a guy named Billy Mitchell. Or is the Navy getting push back from the AF vis-a-vis the whole sinking ships thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:52:19 PM EDT
[#18]
Just give them some GLCMs. Nobody will protest that, right?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:56:34 PM EDT
[#19]
The Navy Wants the Army to Start Sinking Ships
Army needs to sponsor more Muslims and lesbians to the Naval Academy 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:56:58 PM EDT
[#20]
Wouldn't be an exactly new thing.
My Grandfather at Ft. Stevens, OR. 1941 Bottom photo, middle. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:58:48 PM EDT
[#21]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 3:58:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Doesn't the Navy and Air Force already do this with pretty good efficiency?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:01:17 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Billy Mitchell is vindicated LOL!...first thought that came to my mind...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:10:12 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't the Navy and Air Force already do this with pretty good efficiency? I don't know. what was the last enemy warship sunk by the Navy or the Air Force. Also, define "efficiency" compare the cost of an MLRS launcher and a Burke |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:11:41 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
His statement on the "Canal Zone" is interesting since the Chi-coms control the canal...and if we are going to world war against anyone with a navy.. they'd be my first guess... I do like the idea of us taking OUR canal back though... Wonder how many $ the Clintons got from the chicoms for fast tracking that deal? And then there was that idiot jimmy carter who started the whole mess. But why use helicopters when there are several UAVs that could do the scouting and target spotting? And they should push for 16" shore based guns. But use rocket assisted projectiles, too. Just because. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:12:20 PM EDT
[#26]
Sounds like a job for the Coast Guard, not the Army.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:14:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know. what was the last enemy warship sunk by the Navy or the Air Force. Also, define "efficiency" compare the cost of an MLRS launcher and a Burke |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:16:36 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not counting Japanese fishing trawlers, Praying Mantis back in the '80s? and I would argue the difference between coastal patrol boats and a "no shit" warship. Our ASCM capability is fucking pathetic at this point. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:18:48 PM EDT
[#29]
Restore the US Coastal Artillery service. They had the four 16" guns that guarded the approach to SF Bay. The guns are long gone (cut up), but the concrete shelters are still there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:25:01 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Restore the US Coastal Artillery service. If there's coastal artillery we'll need to bring back battleships so we can fight like weapon with like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:25:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Anti-ship version of ATACMS, when?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:29:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anti-ship version of ATACMS, when? as with all things, there are trade offs. Do you have an all purpose missile that is limited by the air platform its also designed for? Do you want range? Do you want warhead? What kind of terminal seeking? Do you want screaming speed and non-ballistic flight path in the terminal advance? I am of the mindset of mass over perfection and overwhelm defenses with cheap missiles arriving simultaneously. but this is just me talking out of my ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:30:37 PM EDT
[#33]
Where does this fit in our doctrine?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:31:16 PM EDT
[#34]
It isn't incredibly out of the question that the Army might need to sink something like some of the hundreds of Nork landing craft. It probably wouldn't be trying to use something like truck mounted NSMs to do so though,namely as it wouldn't be possible to have enough.
On the other hand,something like the Swedish ground mounted Hellfire or Israeli NLOS Spike would have the ability to not just be a 1 trick pony soon delegrated to some National Guard outfit and abandoned in a couple years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:33:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure the Navy and Air Force can do it. Just issue ground launched anti ship missiles to existing rocket artillery units in the Air Force and Navy. There's a big bureaucratic military program management infrastructure behind something like a missile. As soon as that gets joint service it gets worse. The PM and training for something like Harpoon already exists in the Navy, so just get a few petty officers who already specialize in Harpoon, maybe give them a Marine detachment and a truck, and send them to a coastline somewhere. Maybe a half-dozen units total. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:37:04 PM EDT
[#36]
Looks like this is old news:
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/third-offset-breakthrough-us-army-using-existing-technology-18263 At the CSIS’s Third Offset Conference last week, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced that Will Roper’s Strategic Capabilities Office has found a solution to the United States’ shortfall in coastal artillery. The simplicity is almost obvious: modify the Army’s existing Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS) with a anti-ship seeker. This means, as Sydney Freedberg wrote for Breaking Defense, that “after at least two years of pressure from Congress and vague promises from Pentagon leaders, and for the first time since the Coast Artillery Corps was disbanded 66 years ago, the Army is officially back in the business of killing ships.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:37:46 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Restore the US Coastal Artillery service. They had the four 16" guns that guarded the approach to SF Bay. The guns are long gone (cut up), but the concrete shelters are still there. Turn new guns TOWARD San Francisco and assist anyone who wants it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:38:19 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Army has helicopters and mobile missile platforms. Why can't either of these be used to complete this task? I wonder what scenario the Admiral envisions where Army forces would even be in place to oppose an amphibious landing - and who those amphibious forces might belong to. The only scenario I could give any credibility to is a Chinese landing somewhere in Korea. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:40:34 PM EDT
[#39]
How badly would DPICM or current equivalent from MLRS mess up smaller naval vessels and landing ships? Not necessarily sink them, but degrade their ability to complete their mission?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:41:58 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where does this fit in our doctrine? 
spending money? It actually sucks big donkey dick. Which is why it will go nowhere. 2 years ago SECDEF told the Army to do this and the army ignored him. You think this admiral has more fucking pull? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:44:24 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It isn't incredibly out of the question that the Army might need to sink something like some of the hundreds of Nork landing craft. It probably wouldn't be trying to use something like truck mounted NSMs to do so though,namely as it wouldn't be possible to have enough. On the other hand,something like the Swedish ground mounted Hellfire or Israeli NLOS Spike would have the ability to not just be a 1 trick pony soon delegrated to some National Guard outfit and abandoned in a couple years. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:46:24 PM EDT
[#42]
Apache can carry what, 800 or so pounds of Hellfire on a wing?
Harpoon is 1970s vintage and goes about 1500 pounds.... much newer tech and a shorter range requirement should make an 800 pound ship killing missile feasible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:47:26 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
and I would argue the difference between coastal patrol boats and a "no shit" warship. Our ASCM capability is fucking pathetic at this point. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:47:53 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or is the Navy getting push back from the AF vis-a-vis the whole sinking ships thing. I can definitively say that no, they are not. Multiple joint programs for this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:50:11 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryThis program is aimed squarely at countering PLAN. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:51:09 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/ftpuploads/bloguploads/laughing-gifs-jonah-jameson.gif spending money? It actually sucks big donkey dick. Which is why it will go nowhere. 2 years ago SECDEF told the Army to do this and the army ignored him. You think this admiral has more fucking pull? Excuse me for being fiscally responsible.
I just don't see too much likelihood of us being in range of an opposing forces ship. USMC, I can see the argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:52:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apache can carry what, 800 or so pounds of Hellfire on a wing? Harpoon is 1970s vintage and goes about 1500 pounds.... much newer tech and a shorter range requirement should make an 800 pound ship killing missile feasible. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_(missile) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:53:58 PM EDT
[#48]
Blowing shit up is fun.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:53:59 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Excuse me for being fiscally responsible.
I just don't see too much likelihood of us being in range of an opposing forces ship. USMC, I can see the argument. Actually, no. These are inherently defensive capabilities. This is the right mission for the army, if we cared about fighting wars. i wrote an article about it years ago. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 4:54:06 PM EDT
[#50]
More movement toward the Aegis Combat System. Just field and maintain the armament as needed, where needed. When needed.
Skynet will do the rest ! |
|
|
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.
