User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:18:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well that seems to be a concern we currently deter against. We were working under the alternate timeline where nuclear nations fight each other in one of two ways: Thermonuclear or Nothing. Massive retaliation died in 1956 and Dulles had to walk it back in 1957. Try again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:22:37 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 6:26:13 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ft Stevens was my first thought too. Already been done. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/48/c8/29/48c829c7230d0cc89c5e6a375d10ef89.jpg http://usforting.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/fort-stevens-battery-pratt-09.jpg 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:26:15 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Navy's been running Penguins on SH-60s since '94. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_(missile) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 6:28:40 PM EDT
[#5]
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 1988 USS Simpson vs Iran for the Navy. I don't the USAF has ever sunk an enemy ship. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:30:16 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is someone going to train the Army in ship recognition or are they expected to simply shoot at everything that floats? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:32:13 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we can put ASCM assets on some of those islands, even older repurposed Navy Harpoons (while the Harpoons are replaced in Navy service with something newer), we can create significant choke points or go-no areas for the Chinese navy, and give our naval assets more flexibility. It almost allows us to use the missiles in an offensive capacity. And who is going to protect those sites from air or missile attack? The Army's ADA branch? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:33:29 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not for a very long time and Penguin sucked sucked why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:33:50 PM EDT
[#9]
Um; wouldn't the role of Coastal Defense be a role for the US Coast Guard? I mean, it's in their name... I dunno, just throwing it out there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:45:25 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Massive retaliation died in 1956 and Dulles had to walk it back in 1957. Try again. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Well that seems to be a concern we currently deter against. We were working under the alternate timeline where nuclear nations fight each other in one of two ways: Thermonuclear or Nothing. Massive retaliation died in 1956 and Dulles had to walk it back in 1957. Try again. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 6:49:20 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Works for Patriot Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is someone going to train the Army in ship recognition or are they expected to simply shoot at everything that floats? You said what I was thinking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 7:48:47 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought we were never going to get into a shooting war with a near peer since we both have nukes. Enlisted doing strategy. Barbarossa take 2. You won't fight over beijing, thats for sure. But if your only options are "surrender" and "downtown Beijing" china will continue to expand unchecked. We tried the retarded way. the trick is to defend forward and deter aggression by being there first. but nobody is interested in cheap, proven and effective. everyone wants retarded and stupid. I can understand why DoD and the GOFOs love it. But people who don't stand to gain financially supporting it makes no sense. so if you are a proponent of ASB or its various incarnations of JOAC blah blah blah I know you are either crooked or retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 7:50:01 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Works for Patriot anything that falls under the ATO or CFAAC is, by definition, retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:19:38 PM EDT
[#14]
What about a truck similar in size to a Russian SAM TEL, but with four Mk 41 compatible VLS cells? With that, you could mix and match LRASM, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM Blk-2, Tomahawk, and whatever else the Navy cooks up in the future.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:21:57 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Your diversity of opinion is not with me. The only diversity of opinion here is between people who know that Massive Retaliation failed as a policy in 1956 and people who are idiots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:27:37 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And who is going to protect those sites from air or missile attack? The Army's ADA branch? What site? Firing points that move every few hours? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:28:35 PM EDT
[#17]
Is there a reason we can't just buy HFIIIs from Taiwan?
Because they're pretty awesome.  Hsiung Feng III anti ship missile test Taiwan RoC Navy |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:39:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What about a truck similar in size to a Russian SAM TEL, but with four Mk 41 compatible VLS cells? With that, you could mix and match LRASM, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM Blk-2, Tomahawk, and whatever else the Navy cooks up in the future. Something like the Pershing II would work. Update the commo system to work with Link 16. I likely worked on this truck. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:45:34 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Remember... it's the Department of Defense and not the Department of War. You can't use defense and war in the same paragraph! It's a rule or something. The heck with MLRS... break out the MX! Go big or go home. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:47:24 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Remember... it's the Department of Defense and not the Department of War. You can't use defense and war in the same paragraph! It's a rule or something. The heck with MLRS... break out the MX! Go big or go home. If we had a nuclear exchange with China we would lose Honolulu, LA, Seattle, Portland, San Fran and maybe Vegas. I am not seeing a problem at all with your COA, but I don't think the CDR will buy off on the risk assessment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:48:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a reason we can't just buy HFIIIs from Taiwan? Because they're pretty awesome.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJXpAOsv840I wish you were .mil on the high side, I could show you some shit that would make you pound your head against concrete in frustration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:55:46 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I want low speed, self propelled, autonomous mines.  I want drone submarines, each one with about 20 torpedos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 8:58:49 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we had a nuclear exchange with China we would lose Honolulu, LA, Seattle, Portland, San Fran and maybe Vegas. I am not seeing a problem at all with your COA, but I don't think the CDR will buy off on the risk assessment. "I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed... 10, 20 million tops! Depending on the breaks." |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:02:30 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where do they go to school? Who maintains the trucks and launchers? Who provides physical security? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Where do they go to school? Who maintains the trucks and launchers? Who provides physical security? Assuming the missiles are already used by the Navy, they're Navy personnel that go to a Navy school for the Navy missile. The Navy owns and maintains the missiles in their logistics pipeline. Throw in a USMC squad for security and truck driving. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:04:16 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well that seems to be a concern we currently deter against. We were working under the alternate timeline where nuclear nations fight each other in one of two ways: Thermonuclear or Nothing. You certainly were. Or you are with the air force in that we will bomb the fuck out of beijing and china wont do shit. Bold strategy cotton |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:12:41 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like a job for the Coast Guard, not the Army. Apparently we test fired ONE missile back in 1990, but now none of our ships have anti ship missiles, torpedos, sonar, or embark ASW helicopters anymore. And you want our land guys launching missiles at??? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:20:36 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
jack shit is what it will do. TOTALY outside the target set. SDB2 has littoral targets - however we're talking "Sheriff's Boat" type situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
They have come up with a system that will use old MLRS rockets to launch a SDB out of a MLRS or HIMARS system. The newer SDB models have a number of different seeker options, and the glide capability of the SDB there was a fairly significant range. I wonder how well such a thing would work in saturating a ship's defenses. I would fully expect a bunch to get shot down, but I'm sure a lot could be launched at once. -K I am not sure an SDB is the right warhead for ASCM. Don't know. curious what it would do against a frigate. jack shit is what it will do. TOTALY outside the target set. SDB2 has littoral targets - however we're talking "Sheriff's Boat" type situation. Granted that the SDB doesn't have a lot of 'bang' but it does have a penetrating capability. Would this allow it to do more damage? Is there a way to 'tweak' the warhead for anti ship purposes? -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:22:39 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apparently we test fired ONE missile back in 1990, but now none of our ships have anti ship missiles, torpedos, sonar, or embark ASW helicopters anymore. And you want our land guys launching missiles at??? https://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Mellon_Harpoon.jpg You guys could just use your attack helicopters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:25:43 PM EDT
[#29]
So the Navy doesn't want to do land based shit. OK. Cool. From now on seals don't touch dry land.
Fucking stupid budget infighting shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:30:13 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Smoothbore 16" guns. Like an Abrams 120mm, but bigger. You can't get much above 4000 fps muzzle velocity w/o destroying a rifled barrel, or the projectile. Smoothbore guns can get much higher muzzle velocities, you just need to stabilize the round with fins, like a modern tank does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:30:16 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
sucked why? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Not for a very long time and Penguin sucked sucked why? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:33:18 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Granted that the SDB doesn't have a lot of 'bang' but it does have a penetrating capability. Would this allow it to do more damage? Is there a way to 'tweak' the warhead for anti ship purposes? -K Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
They have come up with a system that will use old MLRS rockets to launch a SDB out of a MLRS or HIMARS system. The newer SDB models have a number of different seeker options, and the glide capability of the SDB there was a fairly significant range. I wonder how well such a thing would work in saturating a ship's defenses. I would fully expect a bunch to get shot down, but I'm sure a lot could be launched at once. -K I am not sure an SDB is the right warhead for ASCM. Don't know. curious what it would do against a frigate. jack shit is what it will do. TOTALY outside the target set. SDB2 has littoral targets - however we're talking "Sheriff's Boat" type situation. Granted that the SDB doesn't have a lot of 'bang' but it does have a penetrating capability. Would this allow it to do more damage? Is there a way to 'tweak' the warhead for anti ship purposes? -K If you're going to use 0.3mach glide weapons, you better be ready to use a lot of them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:37:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is someone going to train the Army in ship recognition or are they expected to simply shoot at everything that floats? They shoot at anything that flies, why would things that float be any different? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:37:40 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you're going to use 0.3mach glide weapons, you better be ready to use a lot of them. A battery would give you 100 or so simultaneously. I am not a proponent of sdb but mlrs can give you mass. What about heat seeking / hf seeking bats? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:39:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something like the Pershing II would work. Update the commo system to work with Link 16. I likely worked on this truck.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Pershing2MAN.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What about a truck similar in size to a Russian SAM TEL, but with four Mk 41 compatible VLS cells? With that, you could mix and match LRASM, SM-3, SM-6, ESSM Blk-2, Tomahawk, and whatever else the Navy cooks up in the future. Something like the Pershing II would work. Update the commo system to work with Link 16. I likely worked on this truck.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Pershing2MAN.jpg That said, given how big of a challenge that threat is for us, I'd love to see the PLA(N) try to defend against a Pershing with a MARV. Probably not cheap though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:40:06 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryThose aren't Swedes. Everyone knows that Swedes are swarthy Mediterranean or North African types. Those men look like Europeans masquerading as proper Swedes. I call false flag!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 9:50:19 PM EDT
[#37]
JDAM.......lots of JDAM's
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 10:04:29 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there a reason we can't just buy HFIIIs from Taiwan? Because they're pretty awesome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJXpAOsv840Because the USN prefers to use submarines to sink fishing vessels. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 10:23:46 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because the USN prefers to use submarines to sink fishing vessels. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is there a reason we can't just buy HFIIIs from Taiwan? Because they're pretty awesome. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJXpAOsv840Because the USN prefers to use submarines to sink fishing vessels.
That probably makes a lot more contractors a lot wealthier, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 10:29:03 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Apparently we test fired ONE missile back in 1990, but now none of our ships have anti ship missiles, torpedos, sonar, or embark ASW helicopters anymore. And you want our land guys launching missiles at??? https://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Mellon_Harpoon.jpg I think the larger, destroyer-sized cutters have the mounts and aircraft capacities built in, but not in use. In the event we need to start thinking heavy they can be put on pretty quick. I'm certain the Navy would be able to send the CG techs to run sonars and missiles and whatnot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 10:29:14 PM EDT
[#41]
Billy Mitchell already did that generations a go and suffered a stalled career for embarrassing the admirals and generals that insisted it couldn't be done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 10:35:04 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Very poor reliability from what I've heard Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not for a very long time and Penguin sucked sucked why? I believe I deployed with the last Penguin detachment in 2002-2003. I have tried to shoot 2 of them, one did not leave the rail and the other we could not get on the rail due to maintenance issue with the missile. In our section of aircraft neither missile left the rail on workups. We dropped ours in the water like a torpedo and my wingman had to land and have EOD download theirs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 10:40:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Granted that the SDB doesn't have a lot of 'bang' but it does have a penetrating capability. Would this allow it to do more damage? Is there a way to 'tweak' the warhead for anti ship purposes? -K If it could be configured to strike the hull and detonate below the waterline, even the relatively dinky SDB warhead could probably fuck up a decent size vessel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 10:53:56 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it could be configured to strike the hull and detonate below the waterline, even the relatively dinky SDB warhead could probably fuck up a decent size vessel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 11:02:30 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it could be configured to strike the hull and detonate below the waterline, even the relatively dinky SDB warhead could probably fuck up a decent size vessel. Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it could be configured to strike the hull and detonate below the waterline, even the relatively dinky SDB warhead could probably fuck up a decent size vessel. Quoted:
A battery would give you 100 or so simultaneously. I am not a proponent of sdb but mlrs can give you mass. What about heat seeking / hf seeking bats? Quoted:
guided how? Exactly. How are you going to guide MLRS on a moving ship at 25 miles? Better have JSF orbiting overhead.
Attempting triggering.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 11:11:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly. How are you going to guide MLRS on a moving ship at 25 miles? Better have JSF orbiting overhead.
Attempting triggering. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it could be configured to strike the hull and detonate below the waterline, even the relatively dinky SDB warhead could probably fuck up a decent size vessel. Quoted:
A battery would give you 100 or so simultaneously. I am not a proponent of sdb but mlrs can give you mass. What about heat seeking / hf seeking bats? Quoted:
guided how? Exactly. How are you going to guide MLRS on a moving ship at 25 miles? Better have JSF orbiting overhead.
Attempting triggering. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 11:18:15 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
guided how? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If it could be configured to strike the hull and detonate below the waterline, even the relatively dinky SDB warhead could probably fuck up a decent size vessel. I was just thinking about terminal effectiveness of a smallish weapon, not actually getting the damn thing to hit the ship in the first place.
All "bench racing" aside, developing more capabilities that fit into the HIMARS system makes a lot of sense, to include some sort of ship-killing missile. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 11:19:55 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1988 USS Simpson vs Iran for the Navy. I don't the USAF has ever sunk an enemy ship. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 1988 USS Simpson vs Iran for the Navy. I don't the USAF has ever sunk an enemy ship. We have got at least one under our belt. AC-130 Sinks Iraqi Patrol Boat |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 11:21:20 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that was on page 2. LOL. I would not have re-asked your question if Sylvan had provided an answer.
Overwhelming the close defenses of enemy Warships requires actually flooding those defenses with real threats. Over the Horizon targeting is not trivial.
Orbiting JSF is going to sting a bit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2017 11:23:27 PM EDT
[#50]
The Army has more floating vessels than the Navy. So not to out of reach. At least they did in the 90's.
|
|
|
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.
