User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:40:57 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It will be when we decide to start sinking enemy warships. not really. Ships are inherently expeditionary. Its keeping our ships alive that is the proposed A2/AD challenge. The beauty of our current strategy is instead of spending pennies on the dollar defending what is currently our allies, we wish to surrender everything to China and then, at great expense, conquer it back. Its completely ridiculous, of course, but you don't justify 2400 F35s any other way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:42:11 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was thinking of something like a cluster munition on an ATACMs or HIMARS with a sensor fuzed bomblet. I mentioned BATS earlier as an example. If you can soft kill the fuck out of a ships sensors, comms and weapons systems, who cares if it sinks? In fact, it may be better if it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:45:29 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was thinking of something like a cluster munition on an ATACMs or HIMARS with a sensor fuzed bomblet. Would a efp have enough balls to cut through mutiple levels, increasing the odds of hitting something important. The explosion would damage/degrade on the surface and the penetrator goes south. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:46:31 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And they should push for 16" shore based guns. But use rocket assisted projectiles, too. Just because. Fixed gun emplacements have proven to be a great success in the past after all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 4:47:43 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is length the issue for rocket-launching a Mk48? I know it isn't diametre, as the Tomahawk is pretty close in that regard, if not the same. Some foreign designs basically have a rocket motor attached to the rear of a torpedo that is otherwise exposed. I wonder if a short 21" torpedo (or maybe something still useful for anti-ship use but a bit narrower, like an 18" torpedo) could be used for that purpose. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:01:41 PM EDT
[#6]
SM-6 in VLS or Box Launchers with the limited Anti-Ship and all the benefits of its AA mission. Basically onshore the AEGIS system with the Army. Its not ideal, but a better solution than Harpoon or Tomahawk. Perhaps the VLS systems can be adapted to the LRASM later.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:07:34 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mentioned BATS earlier as an example. If you can soft kill the fuck out of a ships sensors, comms and weapons systems, who cares if it sinks? In fact, it may be better if it doesn't. Quote HistoryQuoted:
<strong>Quoted:</strong>
I was thinking of something like a cluster munition on an ATACMs or HIMARS with a sensor fuzed bomblet. I mentioned BATS earlier as an example. If you can soft kill the fuck out of a ships sensors, comms and weapons systems, who cares if it sinks? In fact, it may be better if it doesn't. Ayup. That's how you do an Army based swarm for getting M-Kills on a ship. Use an updated MGM-164 and cram as many updated BATS designed for ship C4 engagement as possible in there. Pop off 2-3 164s and call it a day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:07:46 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SM-6 in VLS or Box Launchers with the limited Anti-Ship and all the benefits of its AA mission. Basically onshore the AEGIS system with the Army. Its not ideal, but a better solution than Harpoon or Tomahawk. Perhaps the VLS systems can be adapted to the LRASM later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:12:09 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SM-6 in VLS or Box Launchers with the limited Anti-Ship and all the benefits of its AA mission. Basically onshore the AEGIS system with the Army. Its not ideal, but a better solution than Harpoon or Tomahawk. Perhaps the VLS systems can be adapted to the LRASM later. LRASM has already been demonstrated with the VLS. 3rd successful demo was last July. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:13:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
SM-6 in VLS or Box Launchers with the limited Anti-Ship and all the benefits of its AA mission. Basically onshore the AEGIS system with the Army. Its not ideal, but a better solution than Harpoon or Tomahawk. Perhaps the VLS systems can be adapted to the LRASM later. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:19:12 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Fixed gun emplacements have proven to be a great success in the past after all. a rail gun 50 or 60 miles inland should still have at least a hundred mile range past the shore line. put a bunch of layered defenses between the rail guns and the coast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:21:19 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
a rail gun 50 or 60 miles inland should still have at least a hundred mile range past the shore line. put a bunch of layered defenses between the rail guns and the coast. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fixed gun emplacements have proven to be a great success in the past after all. a rail gun 50 or 60 miles inland should still have at least a hundred mile range past the shore line. put a bunch of layered defenses between the rail guns and the coast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:26:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's like giving Patriot anti-ship capabilities. SM-6 has anti ship capabilities. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 5:49:33 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do guided munitions now trump the "a ship's a fool to fight a fort" guideline? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 5:51:24 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We have really shitty anti-ship missiles. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 6:19:41 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The actual performance isn't that bad. The range is just really short. What kind of range is needed to kill ships and not get killed? Are we talking land base artillery range or cruise missile range, assuming you can pack up and move after firing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:06:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Regarding MLRS and ships,new Chinese fire support ship design
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:28:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know what? The Army needs fixed wing attack aircraft that can carry LRASMs. That would fix it.  I approve of this post. Maybe we can bring back the torpedo bombers! |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:38:39 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 
I've built stuff like that for OUR guys for years. It's not THAT hard. 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. HUMINT that would be posing as locals. I doubt the infantry guys will go ape on a woman out looking for food, or wood, or walking to the next village. Fast movers? That can get past our three air forces If those "air forces" were there don't you think they would be handling the problem. Why the fuck would you spend $$$$$$ on a shore based anti ship system with no way to really aim it (that will cost you more if you want that option). When you can load up a F18, B52 or B1 with some anti-ship cruise missiles and go hunting? 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. How do you plan on targeting those missiles and not alert the enemy? IR guidance? There are not going to be any sneaking - if the enemy is up to no good and they even suspect you're on the island (in all likely hood they will know) they will send some HE care packages. For decades we built aircraft, aircraft carriers, DDGs, CGs, LCS, and SSNs to specifically deal with naval problems. Is our Navy and Air Force so incompetent they have to ask the land forces to do their job? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:40:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I approve of this post. Maybe we can bring back the torpedo bombers! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You know what? The Army needs fixed wing attack aircraft that can carry LRASMs. That would fix it. I approve of this post. Maybe we can bring back the torpedo bombers! Ground-effect UAVs with Mk48s. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:43:16 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. You keep thinking like an American. They don't need to get accurate data for a surgical strike. Give their forces an area to search with their air or space born sensors, then expect a load of trouble to rain down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:45:28 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Billy Mitchell is vindicated  That dude was a moron who caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:47:15 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where does this fit in our doctrine? Probably sleeping next to our Cyber doctrine writers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 7:47:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That dude was a moron who caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Billy Mitchell is vindicated That dude was a moron who caused the deaths of thousands of Americans. Lighten up, Francis |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 9:27:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What kind of range is needed to kill ships and not get killed? Are we talking land base artillery range or cruise missile range, assuming you can pack up and move after firing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The actual performance isn't that bad. The range is just really short. What kind of range is needed to kill ships and not get killed? Are we talking land base artillery range or cruise missile range, assuming you can pack up and move after firing. Luyang III has a 300nm (almost) ASCM, subsonic bus with supersonic terminal maneuvering sprint vehicle. Harpoon is "in excess of 67nm". I don't know that we need to completely outstick the PLA(N), but that is a lot of time in their WEZ to get a DDG into shot range, i.e. transit from 200-300nm in to 70nm or so for a Harpoon shot. BTW, the newest DDGs don't carry Harpoon at all. CDCM, especially mobile CDCMs, vs ship is different because LACMs are generally just GPS guided. ASCMs have seekers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 9:59:02 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Billy Mitchell killed some tethered goats, and his publicity stunt ended with failed doctrine that cost thousands of American lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 9:59:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Luyang II has a 200+nm ASCM, subsonic. Luyang III has a 300nm (almost) ASCM, subsonic bus with supersonic terminal maneuvering sprint vehicle. Harpoon is "in excess of 67nm". I don't know that we need to completely outstick the PLA(N), but that is a lot of time in their WEZ to get a DDG into shot range, i.e. transit from 200-300nm in to 70nm or so for a Harpoon shot. BTW, the newest DDGs don't carry Harpoon at all. CDCM, especially mobile CDCMs, vs ship is different because LACMs are generally just GPS guided. ASCMs have seekers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The actual performance isn't that bad. The range is just really short. What kind of range is needed to kill ships and not get killed? Are we talking land base artillery range or cruise missile range, assuming you can pack up and move after firing. Luyang III has a 300nm (almost) ASCM, subsonic bus with supersonic terminal maneuvering sprint vehicle. Harpoon is "in excess of 67nm". I don't know that we need to completely outstick the PLA(N), but that is a lot of time in their WEZ to get a DDG into shot range, i.e. transit from 200-300nm in to 70nm or so for a Harpoon shot. BTW, the newest DDGs don't carry Harpoon at all. CDCM, especially mobile CDCMs, vs ship is different because LACMs are generally just GPS guided. ASCMs have seekers. aren't crusie missiles out to something like 800+miles? Why aren't those an option? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:06:33 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lighten up, Francis The 8th AF took more casualties than the entire USMC, because of "airpower experts" like Mitchell. I'm watching my country go down the same path one hundred years later because pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:36:58 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 8th AF took more casualties than the entire USMC, because of "airpower experts" like Mitchell. I'm watching my country go down the same path one hundred years later because pilots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lighten up, Francis The 8th AF took more casualties than the entire USMC, because of "airpower experts" like Mitchell. I'm watching my country go down the same path one hundred years later because pilots. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:53:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 8th AF took more casualties than the entire USMC, because of "airpower experts" like Mitchell. I'm watching my country go down the same path one hundred years later because pilots. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lighten up, Francis The 8th AF took more casualties than the entire USMC, because of "airpower experts" like Mitchell. I'm watching my country go down the same path one hundred years later because pilots. Well, damn. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 10:57:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
aren't crusie missiles out to something like 800+miles? Why aren't those an option? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:01:47 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The 8th AF took more casualties than the entire USMC, because of "airpower experts" like Mitchell. I'm watching my country go down the same path one hundred years later because pilots. Mitchell was also smart enough to change his opinion when he was wrong. I would like to think he wasn't as fucktarded as Arnold. But I have nothing to back that up. he was all about tactical airpower and clearing the skies. But he bought off on the "flying fortress" nonsense and became "bomber all the things!!!!" I think after the losses the 8th AF took and Germany's failure in the blitz he would have seen that tactical air hadn't been rendered worthless. hard to hate a man who looked this cool. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:07:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
different problem set, obviously. You don't need a lot of capable ASCMs to change a war. Probably the only reason I jumped in this thread is I am back on my falklands kick again and re reading all my books on it. had the argies 10 exocets instead of 5 they would have kept the malvinas. They only had 5 Exocets total? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:09:24 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can't help but think this request is related to the pacific and the worries we could find us in a war with China some day. If so, I don't think this is a bad idea and perhaps a track based platform that can launch multiple harpoons or tomahawk cruse missiles is a worthy idea. If the weapons could be used against land or see targets even better... Edit 1 Here is a land based Harpoon Launch System: http://militaryedge.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Harpoon_land_launch.jpg I just don't know how huge this would need to be to launch multiple tomahawks  That would be one huge SOB of a vehicle!
EDIT 2 - but looks like it was done before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-109G_Ground_Launched_Cruise_Missile The Soviets were truly fearful of the GLCMS. It made them agree to the IDF treaty. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:17:37 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They only had 5 Exocets total? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
different problem set, obviously. You don't need a lot of capable ASCMs to change a war. Probably the only reason I jumped in this thread is I am back on my falklands kick again and re reading all my books on it. had the argies 10 exocets instead of 5 they would have kept the malvinas. They only had 5 Exocets total? Something like that, but only with respect to the air-launched version that could be carried by their Mirages. They had additional Exocets on their ships, including most of their destroyers and their avisos/corvettes (possibly others, I forget for sure). Typically 4 per ship. Some on damaged ships were landed and turned into coast defence batteries. The Belgrano SAG, for example, had 8 Exocets, which combined with the cruiser's 15 6" guns and armour, gave Woodward cause for concern before she was sunk by the Conqueror. Had the Belgrano group made it to safe waters (which they almost did), they could have really fucked some shit up. The Argie carrier group was supposed to strike (with Exocets and aircraft) from the opposite direction in a pincer movement (aided, IIRC, by the Mirages), and there was a third SAG with Exocets that was supposed to attack with missiles around the same time. Their whole plan turned to shambles, though, in no small part due to piss-poor leadership. Still, that was potentially a lot of Exocets coming their way (the British). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:26:17 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is our Navy and Air Force so incompetent they have to ask the land forces to do their job? If I can put ASCMs in Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, and Malaysia....what vitally important sea lane did I just lock down? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:35:27 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The actual performance isn't that bad. The range is just really short. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. I am very curious to hear the opinion of those more knowledgeable than I on this. As I understand it, the Navy is looking at either the Norwegian NSM or a modernized Harpoon. The Modernized Harpoon would have a smaller warhead, which would allow for more fuel and more range. Which would be the better option? Would the smaller warhead on the Harpoon (300lbs vs 500lbs IIRC) be a problem? I'm not sure how this would compare to the NSM's warhead. Does newer technology/chemistry allow for equal effectiveness in a smaller warhead? -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2017 11:45:45 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am very curious to hear the opinion of those more knowledgeable than I on this. As I understand it, the Navy is looking at either the Norwegian NSM or a modernized Harpoon. The Modernized Harpoon would have a smaller warhead, which would allow for more fuel and more range. Which would be the better option? Would the smaller warhead on the Harpoon (300lbs vs 500lbs IIRC) be a problem? I'm not sure how this would compare to the NSM's warhead. Does newer technology/chemistry allow for equal effectiveness in a smaller warhead? -K |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:19:06 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am very curious to hear the opinion of those more knowledgeable than I on this. As I understand it, the Navy is looking at either the Norwegian NSM or a modernized Harpoon. The Modernized Harpoon would have a smaller warhead, which would allow for more fuel and more range. Which would be the better option? Would the smaller warhead on the Harpoon (300lbs vs 500lbs IIRC) be a problem? I'm not sure how this would compare to the NSM's warhead. Does newer technology/chemistry allow for equal effectiveness in a smaller warhead? -K Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. I am very curious to hear the opinion of those more knowledgeable than I on this. As I understand it, the Navy is looking at either the Norwegian NSM or a modernized Harpoon. The Modernized Harpoon would have a smaller warhead, which would allow for more fuel and more range. Which would be the better option? Would the smaller warhead on the Harpoon (300lbs vs 500lbs IIRC) be a problem? I'm not sure how this would compare to the NSM's warhead. Does newer technology/chemistry allow for equal effectiveness in a smaller warhead? -K This is what they plan on replacing the harpoon with. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 12:20:29 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am very curious to hear the opinion of those more knowledgeable than I on this. As I understand it, the Navy is looking at either the Norwegian NSM or a modernized Harpoon. The Modernized Harpoon would have a smaller warhead, which would allow for more fuel and more range. Which would be the better option? Would the smaller warhead on the Harpoon (300lbs vs 500lbs IIRC) be a problem? I'm not sure how this would compare to the NSM's warhead. Does newer technology/chemistry allow for equal effectiveness in a smaller warhead? -K I thought that the NSM was a smaller class of missile than the Harpoon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 1:31:16 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You keep thinking like an American. They don't need to get accurate data for a surgical strike. Give their forces an area to search with their air or space born sensors, then expect a load of trouble to rain down. A load of trouble is not a technical term. Explain to me how you are going to get high explosives working their blast radius routinely before the Army can fire their missiles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:10:00 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cruise missiles are great. Against shore targets that don't move. Targeting over 800 miles is a problem around coastal areas where there is neutral shipping, especially when you have to rely on on-board sensors for terminal guidance. The chance of the missile locking onto the wrong target nears metaphysical certitude. Although there were some things in TASMs that I won't talk about that would significantly improve the chance of hitting the right one. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:25:07 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Cruise missiles are great. Against shore targets that don't move. Targeting over 800 miles is a problem around coastal areas where there is neutral shipping, especially when you have to rely on on-board sensors for terminal guidance. The chance of the missile locking onto the wrong target nears metaphysical certitude. Although there were some things in TASMs that I won't talk about that would significantly improve the chance of hitting the right one. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:28:42 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
a rail gun 50 or 60 miles inland should still have at least a hundred mile range past the shore line. put a bunch of layered defenses between the rail guns and the coast. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Fixed gun emplacements have proven to be a great success in the past after all. a rail gun 50 or 60 miles inland should still have at least a hundred mile range past the shore line. put a bunch of layered defenses between the rail guns and the coast. Be sure to put it next to a big source of electricity for maximum power and efficiency. That way when a cruise missile hits it it can take out a nuclear power plant too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:43:41 AM EDT
[#45]
We should have more land based missiles of all types. Nearly every military, and some militias have this capability already. We don't, because we spend almost 40% of our acquisition budget on aircraft that are extremely expensive, and provide very little unique capability.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 2:53:57 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Be sure to put it next to a big source of electricity for maximum power and efficiency. That way when a cruise missile hits it it can take out a nuclear power plant too. I never said anything about solving the power requirements, was simply noting that a rail gun has some advantages.
just need a round that can course correct in flight, or a damn goo sensor network plotting where the targets are heading... at some point we may solve the power requirements. also, the cruise missile has go get past the payers of defense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 3:12:14 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Something like that, but only with respect to the air-launched version that could be carried by their Mirages. They had additional Exocets on their ships, including most of their destroyers and their avisos/corvettes (possibly others, I forget for sure). Typically 4 per ship. Some on damaged ships were landed and turned into coast defence batteries. The Belgrano SAG, for example, had 8 Exocets, which combined with the cruiser's 15 6" guns and armour, gave Woodward cause for concern before she was sunk by the Conqueror. Had the Belgrano group made it to safe waters (which they almost did), they could have really fucked some shit up. The Argie carrier group was supposed to strike (with Exocets and aircraft) from the opposite direction in a pincer movement (aided, IIRC, by the Mirages), and there was a third SAG with Exocets that was supposed to attack with missiles around the same time. Their whole plan turned to shambles, though, in no small part due to piss-poor leadership. Still, that was potentially a lot of Exocets coming their way (the British). Pretty sure the Argies used Super Etenards in the ASM role. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 4:00:32 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Explain the lol, Mister Not-a-Weapon-Systems-Engineer. 
VA huh? I'm in Norfolk alot. I'll buy you a beer some time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 9:36:12 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty sure the Argies used Super Etenards in the ASM role. correct. and they shit land based conversions of their ship based exocets which damaged Glamorgan and scared the fuck out of the british so bad they used landing craft instead of LSTs to land the 5ht Brigade south of Stanley. 7 hours in a fucking open top LST in the south atlantic in winter. we are talking a mere handful of missiles almost defeating the 3rd most powerful navy in the world at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2017 10:51:47 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mitchell was also smart enough to change his opinion when he was wrong. I would like to think he wasn't as fucktarded as Arnold. But I have nothing to back that up. he was all about tactical airpower and clearing the skies. But he bought off on the "flying fortress" nonsense and became "bomber all the things!!!!" I think after the losses the 8th AF took and Germany's failure in the blitz he would have seen that tactical air hadn't been rendered worthless. hard to hate a man who looked this cool. https://static.thisdayinaviation.com/wp-content/uploads/tdia//2015/10/092211408.jpg You are way too bling focused. I blame your education. Mitchell was hack of the highest order, and bigger glory hound than Mac. That's saying something. The Army airpower guys in the 1920s and 30s saw coastal defense as the low hanging fruit to pluck to fund their ambition. Thus their love of Mitchell's demonstration that showed that air power could defend the coasts. Now, Army coastal defense had been a useless money sump for decades (looking at you Endicott forts!) but the airpower guys took that reality, and went down the equally useless strategic bomber road. If it wasn't for William Moffett, this country, that invented aviation, would likely not have a militarily useful aircraft to its name. |
|
|
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.
