‘If It Floats, It Fights': Navy Seeks ‘Distributed Lethality’

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ‘If It Floats, It Fights': Navy Seeks ‘Distributed Lethality’

Posted: 1/17/2015 1:34:30 AM EDT

The comments

By
Sydney J. Freedberg Jr.
on January 14, 2015 at 3:33 PM

Aegis cruisers and destroyers.

CRYSTAL CITY: "If it floats, it fights,” Rear Adm. Peter Fanta says. "That’s ‘distributed lethality'[:] Make every cruiser, destroyer, amphib, LCS

, a thorn in somebody else’s side.”

Rear Adm. Peter Fanta

"It just takes arming everything,” says Fanta, the director of surface warfare (section N96) on the Navy staff. "Lethality” simply means more and better weapons.
"Distributed” means those weapons go on more ships, operating
independently across a wide expanse of ocean to pose too many threats
and too many targets for an enemy to cope with all at once.

While the Navy’s offensive ambitions are constrained by its budget,
however, they’re still potentially revolutionary. After 20 years of
playing mostly defensive supporting roles — carrier escort, ballistic missile defense,
Tomahawk strikes on targets ashore — the Navy’s surface ships will take
on a more independent and aggressive stance. That aggressiveness brings
risk, especially in the face of well-armed adversaries such as China, especially for smaller and less robust vessels like the Littoral Combat Ship.

In wargames, says Fanta, "this is what we found: Without naming the adversary — you’re right, you lose some LCS in a full-up nation on nation war, [but] you put entire enemy fleets on the bottom of the ocean. Why? Because they come from everywhere and they’re all equipped with [anti-ship] weapons.”

Quantity, in other words, has a quality all its own.

What’s driving this new aggressiveness? The answer is that top Pentagon civilians and leading legislators are increasingly concerned about the Chinese and Russian threat. Now the US Navy’s getting the message. Just before Christmas, the Chief of Naval Operations announced an upgunned version
of the low-cost, high-controversy Littoral Combat Ship, one with a
yet-to-be-selected long-range anti-ship missile. This week, at the
annual conference of the Surface Navy Association, Fanta and other admirals make clear they want to extend that model to the entire surface fleet.
Though details are scarce until the president’s 2016 budget request
comes out next month, the Navy will seek low-cost upgrades in weaponry
and sensors to add offensive firepower to existing vessels, from Aegis destroyers to amphibious assault ships to, potentially, even supply ships.

Vice Adm. Thomas Rowden

"Why not think about putting offensive weapons on our combat logistics warships?” asks Vice Adm. Tom Rowden,
who formerly held Fanta’s job and is now Commander of Naval Surface
Forces. "The picture I’m painting is one of a surface force that is
bristling with offensive capability, one in which a large number of
ships cannot be ignored,” forcing the enemy to divide his attention and
forces. Instead of an adversary being able to focus sensors and smart
weapons on the one or two aircraft carriers the US can typically deploy
to any given region at any given time, "distributed lethality” forces a
foe to deal with dozens of destroyers, Littoral Combat Ships, and
others, all armed with anti-ship weapons those classes lack today.

The new approach is, quite literally, about getting the most bang for the buck. While the Navy wants to develop a new long-range anti-ship missile
to replace the outdated Harpoon, its first resort is to modify the
hardware it already has and buy new hardware that already exists. (One
example is the Norwegian Kongsberg missile recently test-fired off the Littoral Combat Ship Coronado).

The LCS Coronado test-fires a Norwegian Kongsberg missile.

"The budget’s coming down,”
Fanta says. "Distributed lethality … is taking the budget that we have
and making everything out there that floats more lethal.”

"There’s a huge feeling in some areas that we should [just] cut the
number of ships that you’re building or own and make those ships perfect,” Fanta adds. This would produce a smaller fleet of "exquisite” high-capability warships like the Death Star in Star Wars. But Death Stars have a nasty tendency to blow up.

"If I get the wrong ship with the exquisite systems, I’m 15
years away from fixing it,” Fanta says, citing typical development
timelines for a new class of vessel. But if the Navy buys a larger
number of good-enough ships, the rapid acquisition process can upgrade
them as needed to meet new threats. "If somebody has something on the
shelf, I go buy it and I bolt it on,” he says. "We have proven we can do
that inside of six months.”

"Not every platform has to possess the most exquisite sensor or the longest-range, most capable missile,” says Adm. Philip Davidson,
the head of Fleet Forces Command. As well as distributing lethality,
"we must distribute our costs. This requires a mix of high- and
low-[end] surface combatants,” from the glitzy DDG-1000 to the unglamorous LCS.

The two Littoral Combat Ship variants, LCS-1 Freedom (far) and LCS-2 Independence (near).

The Navy’s plan to arm Littoral Combat Ships with long-range
anti-ship weapons makes the relatively lightweight ships a heavyweight
threat, the admirals argued. It’s the old line about the best defense —
or, as Fanta put it, "first choice of any surface warfare officer is hit
the bad guy first.”

The new approach will create some culture shock and awe within the Navy.

"We’ve got a generation of warriors — not just surface warfare
officers — that have been pretty much at liberty to drive to any point
on the ocean and deliver power-projection fires forward without worrying
much about defense [against enemy anti-ship weapons],” said Davidson.
"That’s closing quickly,” he said, citing "anti-access/area denial threats” in places as unlikely as the Black Sea. "Lethality isn’t just about range and explosive weight: [It] must include culture and approach.”

"We’re not talking about missiles and sensors alone,” agrees Rowden.
"We’re talking about people, about developing a whole new generation of
warfighters comfortable with detached operations.”

Independent operations by smaller ships are the founding legends of the Navy: John Paul Jone’s Bonhomme Richard in the Revolution, the frigate Constitution
in the War of 1812. But since World War II, the top-priority mission
for surface combatants has been escorting aircraft carriers, while
long-range, independent operations increasingly became the preserve of
nuclear-powered submarines. Then, once the Soviet Union and the budget
fell, the Navy cost-consciously phased out much of its ability to fight
an enemy fleet. Destroyers refocused on new missions like attacking land
targets with Tomahawks and defending against ballistic missiles. In a
major conflict, war plans and wargames assumed the surface ships would
operate together with the carriers, protected by their onboard aircraft.

The new concept, by contrast, calls for "hunter-killer surface action
groups” of three or four warships operating far beyond a carrier’s
reach. When possible, these small squadrons will stay connected via the
Navy’s new long-range battle networks, sharing threat and target data
over such systems as Naval Integrated Fire Control – Counter-Air (NIFC-CA). But given adversaries’ progress on electronic warfare and cyber attack
— jamming and hacking — they also need to be prepared psychologically
and tactically to operate when the links go dead, said Rowden.

So while technology gets a lot of attention, "it’s a two-pronged
approach,” Rowden told reporters. building on the work of his
predecessor, Vice Adm. Thomas Copeman, Rowden is about to stand up a Top Gun-like
new "Naval Surface Warfighting Development Center” (NSWDC) to devise
new tactics and dispatch trainers to inculcate them across the fleet.
This, he says, "is going to be a generational task.”

The approach already has some backers on Capitol Hill.
"Any new idea that breaks the surface Navy out of the defensive-first
culture that has dominated its investments and planning the last two
decades and brings more offensive-minded thinking to the table should be
encouraged,” says one congressional staffer who works Navy issues.

Only an offensive mindset can keep the fleet relevant in the face of
increasing threats, the staffer argues. "As we talk more about operating
in mature precision-guided munitions regimes, it has become common to
cite the demise of the surface Navy. I think what Rowden and Fanta are
saying — and I tend to agree — is that this is nonsense and a fate we
don’t have to accept,” the staffer says. "By developing new warfighting
concepts for our surface fleet, we not only make use of the large force
structure we have already invested in, but we can also drive the
maritime competition in new directions that are advantageous to our
interests. Instead of China or Iran setting the terms of the competition, we should be seeking to define it and searching for ways to impose costs and put them on their heels. "

Topics: 2016 budget, Adm. Peter Fanta, Adm. Philip Davidson, adm. thomas rowden, anti-access area denial, China, cruisers, destroyers, lcs, littoral combat ship, Missiles, Naval Surface Warfighting Development Center NSWDC, navy, navy future, Russia, surface navy association, Surface Navy Association 2015

Sign up and get Breaking Defense news in your inbox.

<input type="email" id="mce-EMAIL" class="clearText text" size="20" placeholder="Your email address" name="email" />

The rest here, and the comments: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/if-it-floats-it-fights-navy-seeks-distributed-lethality/

</form>

Posted: 1/17/2015 1:38:40 AM EDT

[#1]

Guns and missiles for all the things!!!!!

I don't know much about naval warfare, but that kinda sentiment is pretty easy to get behind.

Posted: 1/17/2015 1:40:06 AM EDT

[#2]

So basically, the LCS is not going to really do LCS shit now? It will basically do what a destroyer or a cruiser would be / should be doing.

Posted: 1/17/2015 1:42:24 AM EDT

[#3]

Quote History

Quoted:

So basically, the LCS is not going to really do LCS shit now? It will basically do what a destroyer or a cruiser would be / should be doing.

View Quote

thats my take at least

Posted: 1/17/2015 1:59:26 AM EDT

[#4]

Seems like a good idea, but there are the problems of space and weight, and electrical capacity, and equipment cooling to consider. Putting offensive (or equally importantly, defensive) weapons on CLF ships sounds great, but how do you do it without detracting from/interfering with their primary mission capability. Not like you can just bolt that stuff on wherever.

Back a hundred years ago on a boring mid watch a few of us were BSing about how cool it would be to replace the aft 1/3 or so of the hangar/flight deck of an LHA with a metric shit ton of VLS cells. It would be cool, but wouldn't ever be considered just because of the impact on the ship's primary and secondary missions.

This really looks like cover for an attempt to put lipstick on the pig that is LCS.

Posted: 1/17/2015 2:10:13 AM EDT

[#5]

Maybe we should have kept those Frigates

Posted: 1/17/2015 2:15:57 AM EDT

[#6]

Skimming the article, the concept sounds solid.

Posted: 1/17/2015 2:17:04 AM EDT

[#7]

Scrap the Little Crappy Ships and modernize the Perry class FFGs and start building new ones.

Posted: 1/17/2015 2:17:24 AM EDT

[#8]

Quote History

Quoted:
Maybe we should have kept those Frigates

View Quote

They did make for nice "littoral" ships at a tax payer friendly price tag.

Posted: 1/17/2015 2:17:48 AM EDT

[#9]

build about 300 more burkes..

Posted: 1/17/2015 2:26:46 AM EDT

[#10]

MOAR HEAVY CRUISERS!

Posted: 1/17/2015 2:33:54 AM EDT

[#11]

Quote History

Quoted:
Scrap the Little Crappy Ships and modernize the Perry class FFGs and start building new ones.

View Quote

USCG WMSLs are a proven platform with room to grow and designed for additional weapons. They are designed to steam alone for weeks, the diesel plant males for amazing fuel range, they can make 23knots on diesels so they can move with a fleet with good economy. Build more while the line is open, pain them grey and call them FFGs. Match the soon to be 8 USCG examples with the same weapons systems, and the CG can augment the Navy with ships in war time.
It has been proposed by the builders all ready. They cost more but bring so much more to the plate for day to day operations. Link to more info here.Clink me Wiki

The CG cutters were set up as frigates in the 80s too, harpoons, torpedos, sonar and all.

Posted: 1/17/2015 2:58:27 AM EDT

[#12]

So does this mean the Coast Guard will eventually get their Harpoon Launchers back?

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:24:57 PM EDT

[#13]

Sounds like a good idea if the Navy's intention is to mount high power lasers on every ship and either network with Aegis equipped ships or install fire control systems as well. Then every ship is an anti-aircraft / anti-missile asset with some surface combatant capability as well. Means that tankers and supply ships can assist in their own defense instead of relying on escort ships..

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:35:29 PM EDT

[#14]

Translation

"So uh, we kinda fucked up that whole LCS thing. Were sorry about that, and we have a new plan to arm all the things."

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:36:57 PM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:

USCG WMSLs are a proven platform with room to grow and designed for additional weapons. They are designed to steam alone for weeks, the diesel plant males for amazing fuel range, they can make 23knots on diesels so they can move with a fleet with good economy. Build more while the line is open, pain them grey and call them FFGs. Match the soon to be 8 USCG examples with the same weapons systems, and the CG can augment the Navy with ships in war time.
It has been proposed by the builders all ready. They cost more but bring so much more to the plate for day to day operations. Link to more info here.Clink me Wiki

The CG cutters were set up as frigates in the 80s too, harpoons, torpedos, sonar and all.

http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Mellon_Harpoon.jpg

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Scrap the Little Crappy Ships and modernize the Perry class FFGs and start building new ones.

USCG WMSLs are a proven platform with room to grow and designed for additional weapons. They are designed to steam alone for weeks, the diesel plant males for amazing fuel range, they can make 23knots on diesels so they can move with a fleet with good economy. Build more while the line is open, pain them grey and call them FFGs. Match the soon to be 8 USCG examples with the same weapons systems, and the CG can augment the Navy with ships in war time.
It has been proposed by the builders all ready. They cost more but bring so much more to the plate for day to day operations. Link to more info here.Clink me Wiki

The CG cutters were set up as frigates in the 80s too, harpoons, torpedos, sonar and all.

http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Mellon_Harpoon.jpg

That works too. The new NSC class look sharp and are nearly the same size as a Perry. Plus since the shipyard is already tooled up and the ship designed it shouldn't be so expensive.

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:37:04 PM EDT

[#16]

Put weapons on naval war ships?

There's a good idea.

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:38:23 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:
So does this mean the Coast Guard will eventually get their Harpoon Launchers back?

View Quote

Ugh. Sounds like more C-Schools

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:38:54 PM EDT

[#18]

That's something the Soviets did for years. They would mount a rocket launcher or gun on Huckleberry Finn's raft if they could figure a way to do it.

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:42:28 PM EDT

[#19]

Quote History

Quoted:
Put weapons on naval war ships?

There's a good idea.

View Quote

Now that you mention it, that makes a lot of sense!

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:43:20 PM EDT

[#20]

Is this just a return to the "Streetfighter" idea of ships from like a decade ago?

It sounds like a lower budget version... rather than build a bunch of new, smaller ships with weapons, let's just put weapons on everything we already have.

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:47:18 PM EDT

[#21]

If you really want to play unfair, you could arm disguised container ships with antiship and tomahawk missiles, as well as antiaircraft missiles.

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:50:49 PM EDT

[#22]

Quote History

Quoted:
Maybe we should have kept those Frigates

View Quote

You didn't hear the news from the other day? The LCS is going to be reclassified to Frigate.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/15/us-navy-ships-idUSKBN0KO22X20150115

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:51:38 PM EDT

[#23]

Quote History

Quoted:

Seems like a good idea, but there are the problems of space and weight, and electrical capacity, and equipment cooling to consider. Putting offensive (or equally importantly, defensive) weapons on CLF ships sounds great, but how do you do it without detracting from/interfering with their primary mission capability. Not like you can just bolt that stuff on wherever.

Back a hundred years ago on a boring mid watch a few of us were BSing about how cool it would be to replace the aft 1/3 or so of the hangar/flight deck of an LHA with a metric shit ton of VLS cells. It would be cool, but wouldn't ever be considered just because of the impact on the ship's primary and secondary missions.

This really looks like cover for an attempt to put lipstick on the pig that is LCS.

View Quote

Holy shit sounds like things you have to worry about on a video game when equipping your space ship!

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:53:09 PM EDT

[#24]

"In wargames, says Fanta, "this is what we found: Without naming the adversary — you’re right, you lose some LCS in a full-up nation on nation war nation vs. a party-barge-full-of-boyscouts-armed-with-.38s-and-10/22s"

FIFY!!!

Posted: 1/17/2015 6:55:14 PM EDT

[#25]

Quote History

Quoted:
Maybe we should have kept those Frigates

View Quote

Posted: 1/17/2015 7:08:58 PM EDT

[#26]

They should have taken CIWS off when they took off all the other stuff. Oh and I think only the Hamilton ever got Harpoons. I'm not against the Navy building WMSL hulls as frigates, but relying on the CG and planning on equipping them with sonar and missles might be a little difficult since the CG doesn't have sonar technicians, got rid of the FT rating, and we're only building 8? WMSL's and the Navy had 71 frigates....

Quote History

Quoted:

USCG WMSLs are a proven platform with room to grow and designed for additional weapons. They are designed to steam alone for weeks, the diesel plant males for amazing fuel range, they can make 23knots on diesels so they can move with a fleet with good economy. Build more while the line is open, pain them grey and call them FFGs. Match the soon to be 8 USCG examples with the same weapons systems, and the CG can augment the Navy with ships in war time.
It has been proposed by the builders all ready. They cost more but bring so much more to the plate for day to day operations. Link to more info here.Clink me Wiki

The CG cutters were set up as frigates in the 80s too, harpoons, torpedos, sonar and all.

http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Mellon_Harpoon.jpg

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Scrap the Little Crappy Ships and modernize the Perry class FFGs and start building new ones.

USCG WMSLs are a proven platform with room to grow and designed for additional weapons. They are designed to steam alone for weeks, the diesel plant males for amazing fuel range, they can make 23knots on diesels so they can move with a fleet with good economy. Build more while the line is open, pain them grey and call them FFGs. Match the soon to be 8 USCG examples with the same weapons systems, and the CG can augment the Navy with ships in war time.
It has been proposed by the builders all ready. They cost more but bring so much more to the plate for day to day operations. Link to more info here.Clink me Wiki

The CG cutters were set up as frigates in the 80s too, harpoons, torpedos, sonar and all.

http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/Mellon_Harpoon.jpg

Posted: 1/17/2015 7:19:48 PM EDT

[#27]

Missile pod on all the things!

Posted: 1/17/2015 8:06:24 PM EDT

[#28]

'If it floats, it fights'

Well, the LCS seems to do the first, somewhat adequately. Now, about the second...

Posted: 1/17/2015 8:18:36 PM EDT

[#29]

LCS is an abortion because NAVSEA fucked up the mission modules which provide warfighting capabilities. LCS is conducting cruises with nothing in the mission module spaces because the mission modules haven't been delivered.

Posted: 1/17/2015 8:20:37 PM EDT

[#30]

"Every Sailor a SEAL"

Posted: 1/17/2015 8:35:53 PM EDT

[#31]

Quote History

Quoted:
Put weapons on naval war ships?

There's a good idea.

View Quote

You jest sir, you jest!

Posted: 1/17/2015 8:39:28 PM EDT

[#32]

Hmmm

A crappy little air launched Exocet took the HMS Sheffield out of the fight - and the warhead never detonated.

Seems like there is probably room on a Ship for a few crappy little missiles if they will fit on an airframe.

Everything with teeth sounds like a fair plan to me. Quantity is a quality all it's own, and all of that.

Posted: 1/17/2015 8:45:45 PM EDT

[#33]

Quote History

Quoted:
'If it floats, it fights'

Well, the LCS seems to do the first, somewhat adequately. Now, about the second...

View Quote

I am pretty sure I looked this up once, and a WW2 Destroyer escort, USS Samuel B. Roberts for example, had more weapons aboard than an LCS

Hell, the average ARFCOMers boat is more heavily armed than an LCS. Oh the tragedy.

Posted: 1/17/2015 9:09:01 PM EDT

[#34]

Quote History

Quoted:
Seems like a good idea, but there are the problems of space and weight, and electrical capacity, and equipment cooling to consider. Putting offensive (or equally importantly, defensive) weapons on CLF ships sounds great, but how do you do it without detracting from/interfering with their primary mission capability. Not like you can just bolt that stuff on wherever.

Back a hundred years ago on a boring mid watch a few of us were BSing about how cool it would be to replace the aft 1/3 or so of the hangar/flight deck of an LHA with a metric shit ton of VLS cells. It would be cool, but wouldn't ever be considered just because of the impact on the ship's primary and secondary missions.

This really looks like cover for an attempt to put lipstick on the pig that is LCS.

View Quote

the other elephant in the room is LOAC issues with civilian-COMMANDED ships engaging in offensive military operations. Should the Navy place offensive weapons on our CLF and other ships, they would need to cough up a commissioned officer to be the CO of each ship, paint over the stack stripes, and delete the N from USNS. The UK's approach was having the RFA be an actual uniformed service, somewhat analogous to the status of NOAA or Public Health Service officers.

The T-AOs were built with a space and weight reservation to mount a CIWS system on the 06 level, near the base of the stack. The T-AKE vessels have a similar space and weight reservation in a similar location. Both spaces on both ships are currently used as gyms. My current ship, since it is a direct copy of a BP tanker, does not have said reservation. NAVSEA, in adopting the design, did not see fit to accommodate that possibility.

Posted: 1/17/2015 9:14:06 PM EDT

[#35]

Sounds like they are adopting the Marines mentality? "Got a transport? How 'bout we put some rockets on it? Tanker? Meet our new and improved Hellfire-tanker!"

Posted: 1/17/2015 9:16:38 PM EDT

[#36]

Did big Navy just ditch "Littoral Combat"?

Does this mean that the watercraft and trailers you rent from MWR are now classified as combatants?

Posted: 1/17/2015 9:25:36 PM EDT

[#37]

The only ships that shouldn't be armed are hospital ships.

Every other ship should have as much offensive and defensive capability as you can cram onto them without sacrificing their primary mission.

Posted: 1/17/2015 9:28:58 PM EDT

[#38]

Quote History

Quoted:
So basically, the LCS is not going to really do LCS shit now? It will basically do what a destroyer or a cruiser would be / should be doing.

View Quote

I would go with what an FFG did before the "G" fell off, actually, which makes sense as they've just decided to redesignate them all as Frigates.

Posted: 1/17/2015 9:32:43 PM EDT

[#39]

Quote History

Quoted:

the other elephant in the room is LOAC issues with civilian-COMMANDED ships engaging in offensive military operations. Should the Navy place offensive weapons on our CLF and other ships, they would need to cough up a commissioned officer to be the CO of each ship, paint over the stack stripes, and delete the N from USNS. The UK's approach was having the RFA be an actual uniformed service, somewhat analogous to the status of NOAA or Public Health Service officers.

The T-AOs were built with a space and weight reservation to mount a CIWS system on the 06 level, near the base of the stack. The T-AKE vessels have a similar space and weight reservation in a similar location. Both spaces on both ships are currently used as gyms. My current ship, since it is a direct copy of a BP tanker, does not have said reservation. NAVSEA, in adopting the design, did not see fit to accommodate that possibility.

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
Seems like a good idea, but there are the problems of space and weight, and electrical capacity, and equipment cooling to consider. Putting offensive (or equally importantly, defensive) weapons on CLF ships sounds great, but how do you do it without detracting from/interfering with their primary mission capability. Not like you can just bolt that stuff on wherever.

Back a hundred years ago on a boring mid watch a few of us were BSing about how cool it would be to replace the aft 1/3 or so of the hangar/flight deck of an LHA with a metric shit ton of VLS cells. It would be cool, but wouldn't ever be considered just because of the impact on the ship's primary and secondary missions.

This really looks like cover for an attempt to put lipstick on the pig that is LCS.

the other elephant in the room is LOAC issues with civilian-COMMANDED ships engaging in offensive military operations. Should the Navy place offensive weapons on our CLF and other ships, they would need to cough up a commissioned officer to be the CO of each ship, paint over the stack stripes, and delete the N from USNS. The UK's approach was having the RFA be an actual uniformed service, somewhat analogous to the status of NOAA or Public Health Service officers.

The T-AOs were built with a space and weight reservation to mount a CIWS system on the 06 level, near the base of the stack. The T-AKE vessels have a similar space and weight reservation in a similar location. Both spaces on both ships are currently used as gyms. My current ship, since it is a direct copy of a BP tanker, does not have said reservation. NAVSEA, in adopting the design, did not see fit to accommodate that possibility.

Yeah, I thought the same thing as I read that part of the article -- I don't see that ever happening.

Posted: 1/17/2015 10:21:17 PM EDT

[#40]

I am, however, willing to place a .50 cal gun mount in each of my portholes.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - ‘If It Floats, It Fights': Navy Seeks ‘Distributed Lethality’

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

Sign up and get Breaking Defense news in your inbox.

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us