User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:21:21 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What tiny islands are you talking about? And you really think HUMINT will generate accurate target locations? Quote HistoryQuoted:
What tiny islands are you talking about? And you really think HUMINT will generate accurate target locations? HUMINT can tell you locations and routes that such units frequently use, or areas where they may be. Radar and other sensors do the rest. Fast movers? Do we no longer have an Air Force? It seems not, otherwise we'd be attacking their ships with our aircraft. The smaller the island the less HUMINT, etc. I'd agree but I'd also point out their people would blend in easier with any population there. Also the smaller the island - the easier it is to find your battery. It's one thing to hide a GLCM in the forests of Germany, quite another to hide a similar unit on the island of Pengjia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:27:12 PM EDT
[#2]
You know what? The Army needs fixed wing attack aircraft that can carry LRASMs. That would fix it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:28:25 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know what? The Army needs fixed wing attack aircraft that can carry LRASMs. That would fix it. And large ships to carry them on. And the mission of amphibious assaults since they are doing all this blue water stuff now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:28:53 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know what? The Army needs fixed wing attack aircraft that can carry LRASMs. That would fix it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:31:10 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's great if your goal is to spend money. Not if you take the money from the AF. The Army would do it pennies on the dollar. which is why it would never happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:31:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's great if your goal is to spend money. Your meter needs calibration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:33:23 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not if you take the money from the AF. The Army would do it pennies on the dollar. which is why it would never happen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's great if your goal is to spend money. Not if you take the money from the AF. The Army would do it pennies on the dollar. which is why it would never happen. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:34:08 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A super tanker would be cheaper. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
just buy a carrier and park a battalion of MLRS on the deck. For intimidation. Bonus points if it is a submersible carrier. A super tanker would be cheaper. DoD mission is to separate taxpayers from their money. "Cheaper" is not in our doctrine. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:34:42 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's great if your goal is to spend money. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You know what? The Army needs fixed wing attack aircraft that can carry LRASMs. That would fix it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:35:47 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the phillipines aren't interested in their own sovreignty, I see no reason why we should be as well. Defense of SCS against Chinese aggression and expansionism is custom made for land based CDCMs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Polish NSM truck. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YdPeXlddoH4/VAa-e4o3ZuI/AAAAAAAAKCM/I752pdVP9mw/s1600/IMG_8993.jpg Sweden reactivated RBS-15 trucks recently http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/RBS-15_truck_launch.jpg However,as for the US needing anything close I'm not convinced. An already paid for B-1 with 24 LRASM just looks like a better plan. If the phillipines aren't interested in their own sovreignty, I see no reason why we should be as well. Defense of SCS against Chinese aggression and expansionism is custom made for land based CDCMs. Especially if we were to occupy some of the man-made islands currently under construction in the SCS. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:38:42 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Especially if we were to occupy some of the man-made islands currently under construction in the SCS. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Polish NSM truck. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-YdPeXlddoH4/VAa-e4o3ZuI/AAAAAAAAKCM/I752pdVP9mw/s1600/IMG_8993.jpg Sweden reactivated RBS-15 trucks recently http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/RBS-15_truck_launch.jpg However,as for the US needing anything close I'm not convinced. An already paid for B-1 with 24 LRASM just looks like a better plan. If the phillipines aren't interested in their own sovreignty, I see no reason why we should be as well. Defense of SCS against Chinese aggression and expansionism is custom made for land based CDCMs. Especially if we were to occupy some of the man-made islands currently under construction in the SCS. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:42:01 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yall need to specify... The GBU-39 works very differently than the GBU-53. Explosives wise, both of them are only going to be "fucking up" patrol boats. Anything in the thousands of tonnes range, wont be doing shit. The reason a GBU-53 can defeat tracked vehicles is because of the SCJ, much like a Hellfire. The GBU-39 does not have a SCJ. Actually, that's how people should think of SDBs in general. Gliding AGM-114s with an ever so slightly bigger Blast/Frag. You could use a AGM-114 on a patrol boat as well. For a below waterline shot, a GBU-39 would have to be SALed in. The SAL variant of the GBU-39 is still in EMD. The GBU-53 could guide itself in without an issue... seeing as how littoral targets are already in the target set. So, the better way to address SDB vs thousands tonne bigboy ships would be to simply think in terms of "how many hellfires would it take to sink that big motherfucker?" AKA - It's a VERY wrong tool for the job and the weaponeers and mission plans would come beat your ass for even suggesting it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
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. Yall need to specify... The GBU-39 works very differently than the GBU-53. Explosives wise, both of them are only going to be "fucking up" patrol boats. Anything in the thousands of tonnes range, wont be doing shit. The reason a GBU-53 can defeat tracked vehicles is because of the SCJ, much like a Hellfire. The GBU-39 does not have a SCJ. Actually, that's how people should think of SDBs in general. Gliding AGM-114s with an ever so slightly bigger Blast/Frag. You could use a AGM-114 on a patrol boat as well. For a below waterline shot, a GBU-39 would have to be SALed in. The SAL variant of the GBU-39 is still in EMD. The GBU-53 could guide itself in without an issue... seeing as how littoral targets are already in the target set. So, the better way to address SDB vs thousands tonne bigboy ships would be to simply think in terms of "how many hellfires would it take to sink that big motherfucker?" AKA - It's a VERY wrong tool for the job and the weaponeers and mission plans would come beat your ass for even suggesting it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:43:43 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, The navy is tired of GCCs demanding ships to stay in port and defend land targets with their sensors/launchers/missiles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
sounds like the Navy is smarting off. A you need us, you can not sink a ship. I don't understand how hard updating the programs that allow tanks and howitzers to hit moving land targets to moving water targets would be all that hard, but likewise how often is it actually helpful? No, The navy is tired of GCCs demanding ships to stay in port and defend land targets with their sensors/launchers/missiles. Well, in this case, it's a GCC, who happens to be Navy, asking for the Army to field the capability. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:46:11 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you're suggesting camo nets and slow moving vehicles on tiny islands will be protection enough from fast movers with GMTI and HUMINT on the ground?  Best of luck!Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? So you're suggesting camo nets and slow moving vehicles on tiny islands will be protection enough from fast movers with GMTI and HUMINT on the ground? Best of luck!More worried about GPS/GLONASS/BeiDou guided LACMs or MRBMs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:50:47 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, in this case, it's a GCC, who happens to be Navy, asking for the Army to field the capability. Still a sailor. Having a ship sitting in port doing a mission is a retarded waste of money. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:53:53 PM EDT
[#16]
Apparently surface launching LRASM is a thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:55:42 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More worried about GPS/GLONASS/BeiDou guided LACMs or MRBMs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? So you're suggesting camo nets and slow moving vehicles on tiny islands will be protection enough from fast movers with GMTI and HUMINT on the ground? Best of luck!More worried about GPS/GLONASS/BeiDou guided LACMs or MRBMs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:57:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't need to sink it. Just need to take out a radar array or the VLS systems. Once they can't shoot long range SAMs, you can kill them at leisure with laser JDAMs. If only we had stealthy strike fighters that could defeat A2/AD. That would be a game changer. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 2:59:51 PM EDT
[#19]
Don't our ships already carry anti ship missiles? Why not just drop those on shore in some form and call it a day.
We're doing that with the Aegis system already. Seems like a waste of time and money to reinvent the wheel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:02:26 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What tiny islands are you talking about? And you really think HUMINT will generate accurate target locations? Fast movers? Do we no longer have an Air Force? Most of that stuff is mutually exclusive. The smaller the island the less HUMINT, etc. He obviously has no idea what humint is or how it works. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:02:33 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
HUMINT can tell you locations and routes that such units frequently use, or areas where they may be. Radar and other sensors do the rest. It seems not, otherwise we'd be attacking their ships with our aircraft. I'd agree but I'd also point out their people would blend in easier with any population there. Also the smaller the island - the easier it is to find your battery. It's one thing to hide a GLCM in the forests of Germany, quite another to hide a similar unit on the island of Pengjia. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What tiny islands are you talking about? And you really think HUMINT will generate accurate target locations? HUMINT can tell you locations and routes that such units frequently use, or areas where they may be. Radar and other sensors do the rest. Fast movers? Do we no longer have an Air Force? It seems not, otherwise we'd be attacking their ships with our aircraft. The smaller the island the less HUMINT, etc. I'd agree but I'd also point out their people would blend in easier with any population there. Also the smaller the island - the easier it is to find your battery. It's one thing to hide a GLCM in the forests of Germany, quite another to hide a similar unit on the island of Pengjia. I don't think you begin to appreciate how hard it is to target single vehicles with kilometers in between them. You need grid locations that are accurate to within 50 meters and you need them to be no more than a few hours old. These guys would damn near live in the field if anything were likely to pop off, which means they'd be hard to locate. HUMINT? You've got to go looking for them. And they are guarded by an infantry unit that is pissed off and wants to kill someone. Fast movers? That can get past our three air forces and our ADA to drop on a 50M target that moves every four hours? Have fun. Meanwhile, you've got the ability to launch a missile within 45 seconds with 24/7/365 availability in basically all weather with no need for a fixed runway, aerial tanker, fighter escort, crew rest, or MX downtime. The system cost is minimal and the lifecycle costs are orders of magnitude cheaper and the only time the enemy is going to know they are being targeted is when they detect incoming, not when they see planes moving on the runway. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:02:40 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't our ships already carry anti ship missiles? Why not just drop those on shore in some form and call it a day. We're doing that with the Aegis system already. Seems like a waste of time and money to reinvent the wheel. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:03:39 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not if you take the money from the AF. The Army would do it pennies on the dollar. which is why it would never happen. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
That's great if your goal is to spend money. Not if you take the money from the AF. The Army would do it pennies on the dollar. which is why it would never happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:04:17 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If only we had stealthy strike fighters that could defeat A2/AD. That would be a game changer. who has an A2/AD problem right now? It ain't us. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:04:22 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
He obviously has no idea what humint is or how it works. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
What tiny islands are you talking about? And you really think HUMINT will generate accurate target locations? Fast movers? Do we no longer have an Air Force? Most of that stuff is mutually exclusive. The smaller the island the less HUMINT, etc. He obviously has no idea what humint is or how it works. You don't know why you are talking about. The TLE for a trained forward observer is not accurate enough to generate a fire mission or aerial sortie on a single vehicle in a hide. Not with any real accuracy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:04:56 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So now we need to prepare for MCO against near peer, but only if the ARMY is doing it. Neat Wait, a few CDCMs is now MCO? Do you even know what MCO is? Of course you don't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:05:03 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know what? The Army needs fixed wing attack aircraft that can carry LRASMs. That would fix it.
https://news-images.vice.com/images/articles/meta/2016/02/05/the-pentagon-just-issued-marching-orders-on-climate-change-1454689093.jpg?crop=1xw:0.8622754491017964xh;0xw,0.07784431137724551xh&resize=700:*&output-format=image/jpeg&output-quality=75 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:06:26 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More worried about GPS/GLONASS/BeiDou guided LACMs or MRBMs. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? So you're suggesting camo nets and slow moving vehicles on tiny islands will be protection enough from fast movers with GMTI and HUMINT on the ground? Best of luck!More worried about GPS/GLONASS/BeiDou guided LACMs or MRBMs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:09:33 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wait, a few CDCMs is now MCO? Do you even know what MCO is? Of course you don't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So now we need to prepare for MCO against near peer, but only if the ARMY is doing it. Neat Wait, a few CDCMs is now MCO? Do you even know what MCO is? Of course you don't. A few CDCMs used in anger against WHOM may result in WHAT? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:11:16 PM EDT
[#30]
This thread needs more initialisms
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:12:39 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread needs more initialisms
Coastal Defense Cruise Missile, by the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:13:59 PM EDT
[#32]
Sounds like a great way for the army and nave to start squabbling over who gets money for sinking ships. It makes more sense to me to keep anything related to ship sinking in the navy's corner.
I realize that some navy units operate on land, and in air, but for the most part I think ship sinking belongs to the Navy and coast guard. Otherwise, they will bicker over the distance at which responsibility for ship sinking goes from land based units to sea based units. When would the navy take over? 2, 5, 9, 12, 50, 300 miles from shore? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:15:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I had to look up CDCM.
Coastal Defense Cruise Missile, by the way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:20:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seeing as how the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep the PC on the QT? 'Cause if it leaks to the VC he could end up MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I had to look up CDCM.
Coastal Defense Cruise Missile, by the way. Ziarifleman dies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:20:56 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like a great way for the army and nave to start squabbling over who gets money for sinking ships. It makes more sense to me to keep anything related to ship sinking in the navy's corner. I realize that some navy units operate on land, and in air, but for the most part I think ship sinking belongs to the Navy and coast guard. Otherwise, they will bicker over the distance at which responsibility for ship sinking goes from land based units to sea based units. When would the navy take over? 2, 5, 9, 12, 50, 300 miles from shore?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:22:35 PM EDT
[#36]
Hell no. As former Army I'd rather see the coastguard do that job. the last thing America needs is a company of drunken brawling oversexed , over paid beach bums in marpat near all our coastal cities.
Let the coasties use harpoons to sink drug runners. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:24:04 PM EDT
[#37]
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. the easieat way would be to make an anti ship MLRS package. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:25:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell no. As former Army I'd rather see the coastguard do that job. the last thing America needs is a company of drunken brawling oversexed , over paid beach bums in marpat near all our coastal cities. Let the coasties use harpoons to sink drug runners. All of this is focused towards the South China Sea, the North Sea, and the Black Sea. But mostly the South China Sea. That's not China's personal lake. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:36:53 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not if you take the money from the AF. . Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
That's great if your goal is to spend money. Not if you take the money from the AF. . shut your whore mouth beatupsmiley.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:39:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
who has an A2/AD problem right now? It ain't us. It will be when we decide to start sinking enemy warships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:50:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't know why you are talking about. The TLE for a trained forward observer is not accurate enough to generate a fire mission or aerial sortie on a single vehicle in a hide. Not with any real accuracy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What tiny islands are you talking about? And you really think HUMINT will generate accurate target locations? Fast movers? Do we no longer have an Air Force? Most of that stuff is mutually exclusive. The smaller the island the less HUMINT, etc. He obviously has no idea what humint is or how it works. You don't know why you are talking about. The TLE for a trained forward observer is not accurate enough to generate a fire mission or aerial sortie on a single vehicle in a hide. Not with any real accuracy. Lol. Yeah a couple fat white guys with a terp waving trash bags of money and trying to teach LNs how to read a map is definitely better than some fisters or recon dudes with lasers and radios. For an island whose heart and mind we are winning. Or something |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:52:18 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I question the ability of sensors inherently that small to defeat the various EW and defenses any decent ship would have. Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
SDB II will have a multi-mode seeker. I question the ability of sensors inherently that small to defeat the various EW and defenses any decent ship would have. SDB2's multimode has already been proven in a dozen livefires, where targets were using countermeasures. EW has the potential to dork up the 39, as it doesn't have a seeker; let alone a multi-mode one. But still... most modern weapons have some way of dealing with S Jamming. With M-Code being rolled out; AJ is mandated to ALL systems that like to get those nice updates from the all seeing eyes in the sky. EW wont do shit to the 53. So for either of them, I dont think EW alone wont get the job done. The problem with a ship though... it has countermeasures that include just shooting the fuckers down. It is mitigated by the fact that the 39/53 have minimal IR signature (no engine) and the 39 is completely passive. I have limited knowledge of active denial systems, so couldn't even venture a guess as to a SDB1 or SDB2 getting through. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:57:41 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. Yeah a couple fat white guys with a terp waving trash bags of money and trying to teach LNs how to read a map is definitely better than some fisters or recon dudes with lasers and radios. For an island whose heart and mind we are winning. Or something I think I misread your original post. Degrading enemy fires capabilities is more difficult than some people think. The calculated rate of attrition in MCO is still low enough that it would take days to destroy a battery. And that is assuming they are shooting. Detecting them without anyone shooting is going to be harder. If I had eyes on a target, a laser and an HF radio to talk back to China the chance of me being able to generate a successful sortie that penetrated the airspace and hit the target is probably in the single digit percentile. And hitting a moving target with a long range missile? I'm not even sure which missile one would use for such a thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 3:59:44 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you were the skipper of a larger warship, would you still sail near an island that had the ability to hit you with multiple GBU-39/53 or Hellfire sized weapons? Would a skipper simply shrug off the danger and sail anyway or would he tend to sail around that island at a greater distance or go somewhere else entirely? I guess I am asking if such a capability would still create enough of a deterrence factor to be useful against larger ships while still being dangerous to smaller craft? Maybe the term I'm looking for is 'sea denial'? -K Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
Yall need to specify... The GBU-39 works very differently than the GBU-53. Explosives wise, both of them are only going to be "fucking up" patrol boats. Anything in the thousands of tonnes range, wont be doing shit. The reason a GBU-53 can defeat tracked vehicles is because of the SCJ, much like a Hellfire. The GBU-39 does not have a SCJ. Actually, that's how people should think of SDBs in general. Gliding AGM-114s with an ever so slightly bigger Blast/Frag. You could use a AGM-114 on a patrol boat as well. For a below waterline shot, a GBU-39 would have to be SALed in. The SAL variant of the GBU-39 is still in EMD. The GBU-53 could guide itself in without an issue... seeing as how littoral targets are already in the target set. So, the better way to address SDB vs thousands tonne bigboy ships would be to simply think in terms of "how many hellfires would it take to sink that big motherfucker?" AKA - It's a VERY wrong tool for the job and the weaponeers and mission plans would come beat your ass for even suggesting it. If you were the skipper of a larger warship, would you still sail near an island that had the ability to hit you with multiple GBU-39/53 or Hellfire sized weapons? Would a skipper simply shrug off the danger and sail anyway or would he tend to sail around that island at a greater distance or go somewhere else entirely? I guess I am asking if such a capability would still create enough of a deterrence factor to be useful against larger ships while still being dangerous to smaller craft? Maybe the term I'm looking for is 'sea denial'? -K Shit a warship? If I knew the "badguys" only had SDB1s and 2s; I would go on deck with my dick out and dare them to try. Even if some get through, they are simply too small and not designed to go after critical systems on a ship. If I was in a patrol boat... fuck that, I'm not going ANYWHERE near that area. The GBU53 was designed to go after those and wreck them. When you're tooling around in a "swift boat" and not actively trying to get a purple heart and go home... you're in the middle of SDB2's littoral wheelhouse. A grenade inside your car will fuck it up. A grenade on the outside wall of the pentagon... no one will notice. That's the kind of orders of magnitude were talking about here when comparing boats to ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:02:49 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Shit a warship? If I knew the "badguys" only had SDB1s and 2s; I would go on deck with my dick out and dare them to try. Even if some get through, they are simply too small and not designed to go after critical systems on a ship. If I was in a patrol boat... fuck that, I'm not going ANYWHERE near that area. The GBU53 was designed to go after those and wreck them. When you're tooling around in a "swift boat" and not actively trying to get a purple heart and go home... you're in the middle of SDB2's littoral wheelhouse. A grenade inside your car will fuck it up. A grenade on the outside wall of the pentagon... no one will notice. That's the kind of orders of magnitude were talking about here when comparing boats to ships. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
Yall need to specify... The GBU-39 works very differently than the GBU-53. Explosives wise, both of them are only going to be "fucking up" patrol boats. Anything in the thousands of tonnes range, wont be doing shit. The reason a GBU-53 can defeat tracked vehicles is because of the SCJ, much like a Hellfire. The GBU-39 does not have a SCJ. Actually, that's how people should think of SDBs in general. Gliding AGM-114s with an ever so slightly bigger Blast/Frag. You could use a AGM-114 on a patrol boat as well. For a below waterline shot, a GBU-39 would have to be SALed in. The SAL variant of the GBU-39 is still in EMD. The GBU-53 could guide itself in without an issue... seeing as how littoral targets are already in the target set. So, the better way to address SDB vs thousands tonne bigboy ships would be to simply think in terms of "how many hellfires would it take to sink that big motherfucker?" AKA - It's a VERY wrong tool for the job and the weaponeers and mission plans would come beat your ass for even suggesting it. If you were the skipper of a larger warship, would you still sail near an island that had the ability to hit you with multiple GBU-39/53 or Hellfire sized weapons? Would a skipper simply shrug off the danger and sail anyway or would he tend to sail around that island at a greater distance or go somewhere else entirely? I guess I am asking if such a capability would still create enough of a deterrence factor to be useful against larger ships while still being dangerous to smaller craft? Maybe the term I'm looking for is 'sea denial'? -K Shit a warship? If I knew the "badguys" only had SDB1s and 2s; I would go on deck with my dick out and dare them to try. Even if some get through, they are simply too small and not designed to go after critical systems on a ship. If I was in a patrol boat... fuck that, I'm not going ANYWHERE near that area. The GBU53 was designed to go after those and wreck them. When you're tooling around in a "swift boat" and not actively trying to get a purple heart and go home... you're in the middle of SDB2's littoral wheelhouse. A grenade inside your car will fuck it up. A grenade on the outside wall of the pentagon... no one will notice. That's the kind of orders of magnitude were talking about here when comparing boats to ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:14:19 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote History<strong>Quoted:</strong>
What happens when all the antennas and radars are swept off the outside of the vessel by a flurry of small bombs? You're assuming SDBs were designed to target those features, swarm, and to get past active denial systems in the 1st place. Lets assume all that was true and the first "flurry" took out all the radar, passive and active denial systems, etc etc. Everything. Okay, now it will only take another hundred of them to actually sink that ship. Taking out moving armor in bad weather... is a very very different thing than sinking ships. You don't hunt a bear with a 22short handgun. Stick with popping crows and jackrabbits if that's what you've got. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:18:03 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're assuming SDBs were designed to target those features, swarm, and to get past active denial systems in the 1st place. Lets assume all that was true and the first "flurry" took out all the radar, passive and active denial systems, etc etc. Everything. Okay, now it will only take another hundred of them to actually sink that ship. Taking out moving armor in bad weather... is a very very different thing than sinking ships. Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
What happens when all the antennas and radars are swept off the outside of the vessel by a flurry of small bombs? You're assuming SDBs were designed to target those features, swarm, and to get past active denial systems in the 1st place. Lets assume all that was true and the first "flurry" took out all the radar, passive and active denial systems, etc etc. Everything. Okay, now it will only take another hundred of them to actually sink that ship. Taking out moving armor in bad weather... is a very very different thing than sinking ships. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:22:12 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're assuming SDBs were designed to target those features, swarm, and to get past active denial systems in the 1st place. Lets assume all that was true and the first "flurry" took out all the radar, passive and active denial systems, etc etc. Everything. Okay, now it will only take another hundred of them to actually sink that ship. Taking out moving armor in bad weather... is a very very different thing than sinking ships. You don't hunt a bear with a 22short handgun. Stick with popping crows and jackrabbits if that's what you've got. If you can drop a small bomb on the ship then you can drop a 1000lb JDAM. Just skip the baby bombs and got straight to JDAMs. The question is can you get you aircraft in position to drop bombs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:25:52 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you can drop a small bomb on the ship then you can drop a 1000lb JDAM. Just skip the baby bombs and got straight to JDAMs. The question is can you get you aircraft in position to drop bombs? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're assuming SDBs were designed to target those features, swarm, and to get past active denial systems in the 1st place. Lets assume all that was true and the first "flurry" took out all the radar, passive and active denial systems, etc etc. Everything. Okay, now it will only take another hundred of them to actually sink that ship. Taking out moving armor in bad weather... is a very very different thing than sinking ships. You don't hunt a bear with a 22short handgun. Stick with popping crows and jackrabbits if that's what you've got. If you can drop a small bomb on the ship then you can drop a 1000lb JDAM. Just skip the baby bombs and got straight to JDAMs. The question is can you get you aircraft in position to drop bombs? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:26:57 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you need to sink it at that point? Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
What happens when all the antennas and radars are swept off the outside of the vessel by a flurry of small bombs? You're assuming SDBs were designed to target those features, swarm, and to get past active denial systems in the 1st place. Lets assume all that was true and the first "flurry" took out all the radar, passive and active denial systems, etc etc. Everything. Okay, now it will only take another hundred of them to actually sink that ship. Taking out moving armor in bad weather... is a very very different thing than sinking ships. Well... you could try and sneak into the bears den and poke his eyes out while he's asleep? But now you just have a pissed off bear. But it begs the question. Why are we even trying that? It's so far outside of the mission set and capabilities of the systems. Just use acouple LRASM and be done with it. Their entire purpose for being is to sink ships. Use the tools that were designed for it. Point blank, the small class bombs will never be used against ships without SUBSTANTIAL redesigns and requirements changes. |
|
|
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.
