User Panel
Quoted: thats my line. and, as I stated, take the funding out of the F35 program. Stop asking for a platform. Ask for an effect. View Quote A long range missile gives the Marines a force multiplier for the F-35 without relying on Navy SM-6s. Ground launched SM-6 is pretty close to the answer they are seeking. |
|
Quoted:
I don't really understand... Why isn't this a role of.... you know... the navy? View Quote I love this attitude. Everyone has to help the land component guys do their jobs, but it's solely the Navy's responsibility to deal with anything afloat. |
|
Quoted:
Would the SM-6 be suitable in this application? It seems like it could cover a lot of bases, anti-ship, anti-air, anti-ballistic missile. If viable it would check a lot of boxes to have an expeditionary force with a deep bench. View Quote If you want to employ it as a SAM, it needs (at least in its present configuration) to be paired with a very high quality air search/fire control radar and an S-band data link (currently provided by SPY radar). That's not really a mobile/expeditionary capability. |
|
Quoted:
It countered as well as my statement that the Army doesn’t care about ADA was countered by your Air Force hate. In the division of responsibilities the Army owns ADA. Fact or not? View Quote |
|
Quoted:
The Army may own it - but the USAF is mighty particular about the Army actually USING it .... View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
It countered as well as my statement that the Army doesn’t care about ADA was countered by your Air Force hate. In the division of responsibilities the Army owns ADA. Fact or not? |
|
Quoted: SM-6 is a SAM with a limited anti-ship capability. It has a relatively small warhead and seeker search area compared with purpose-built ASCMs like Harpoon and NSM If you want to employ it as a SAM, it needs (at least in its present configuration) to be paired with a very high quality air search/fire control radar and an S-band data link (currently provided by SPY radar). That's not really a mobile/expeditionary capability. View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
Winning the war would destroy everyone's funding. So, there's sufficient motivation to prolong it. View Quote |
|
And that is with about as close to zero air-breather threat as you could get.
|
|
Quoted:
I was wondering the same. If they need an antiship missle, can't they pick up the sat phone and call the Navy? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Do the Marines expect to be somewhere that the Navy isn't? US Army used to have C-7 Caribou, C-123s, now we are dependent upon the whims of the USAF for CAS, Vertical Forced Entry Transport, and CAP. Each Infantry Division Aviation Brigade should have two AC-130Us that the USAFSOC is phasing out. Army used to have its own Aviation Mechanics, no reason why we can't send EMs to USAF tech schools to learn Herky Bird maintenance. |
|
|
Quoted:
Better to be as self-sufficient as possible. Marines get F/A-18s, Marines get Harriers, Marines get F-35s, Marines turn tanker aircraft into gunships, too! US Army used to have C-7 Caribou, C-123s, now we are dependent upon the whims of the USAF for CAS, Vertical Forced Entry Transport, and CAP. Each Infantry Division Aviation Brigade should have two AC-130Us that the USAFSOC is phasing out. Army used to have its own Aviation Mechanics, no reason why we can't send EMs to USAF tech schools to learn Herky Bird maintenance. View Quote |
|
Lockheed has been tasked for exactly this and will be submitting a bid by the end of the week.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Winning the war would destroy everyone's funding. So, there's sufficient motivation to prolong it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: the same generals and admirals demanding trillions to fight china are silent when it comes to funding the chinese military through our trade deficit. funny that. So, there's sufficient motivation to prolong it. While some may think that Generals should hold open opinions on politician’s policies, that’s what got MacArther fired. The precedent continues through climate change believer Mattis. |
|
Quoted: ORLY? http://econdataus.com/curacc06.jpg Current accounts was slightly positive in '91 because Japan paid us $500M to make up for the shortfall in their promised $9B in support to Desert Storm View Quote |
|
|
|
Quoted: SM-6 is a SAM with a limited anti-ship capability. It has a relatively small warhead and seeker search area compared with purpose-built ASCMs like Harpoon and NSM If you want to employ it as a SAM, it needs (at least in its present configuration) to be paired with a very high quality air search/fire control radar and an S-band data link (currently provided by SPY radar). That's not really a mobile/expeditionary capability. View Quote pylon armament approach? Planes like the F-18 have radars that can target things in the air or on the ground. One time a pylon might hold an AMRAAM. The next mission it might hold a JDAM. The radar doesn't seem to care. I don't see why a ground based system can't do the same. The base system is a radar/FLIR set and launcher trucks that can carry armament canisters. In one case, the system is overlooking a harbor and ASMs are in the canisters. In the next, it is at an airport and SM-6 or Patriot is in the canister. In another it is near a capital and has quad packed PAC-3 and ESSMs in the canister. The launcher seems like it should be generalized. The munitions should be specialized. |
|
Quoted:
Do you think the radar requirements are why ground systems haven't adopted a pylon armament approach? Planes like the F-18 have radars that can target things in the air or on the ground. One time a pylon might hold an AMRAAM. The next mission it might hold a JDAM. The radar doesn't seem to care. I don't see why a ground based system can't do the same. The base system is a radar/FLIR set and launcher trucks that can carry armament canisters. In one case, the system is overlooking a harbor and ASMs are in the canisters. In the next, it is at an airport and SM-6 or Patriot is in the canister. In another it is near a capital and has quad packed PAC-3 and ESSMs in the canister. The launcher seems like it should be generalized. The munitions should be specialized. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
to support the Navy in a fight for sea control The Marine Corps has been refreshing its doctrine and concepts for naval warfare, and the Expeditionary Advance Base Operations (EABO) concept in particular is already informing wargames, exercises and acquisition. Fielding a long-range anti-ship missile is an important part of this concept, which calls for the Marines to spread out over islands or pockets of beaches and using that temporary base to secure air and sea space.
“There’s a ground component to the maritime fight. We’re a naval force in a naval campaign; you have to help the ships control sea space. And you can do that from the land,” Neller told USNI News on Feb. 15 at the WEST 2019 conference, cohosted by the U.S. Naval Institute and AFCEA. “We’ve done it with airplanes historically in World War II. Marines’ traditional mission is the seizure and securing of advance naval bases for the prosecution of the naval campaign. But if the air space is more contested and you want to be able to keep ships away at some distance because they’ve got long-range strike, you’ve got to be able to strike them. So you need to have a capability to control the maritime space. So I think we’re in a good place to control the air space – we need more air defense, we need more counter-missiles capability – but we’ve got to be able to attack surface platforms at range, and so that’s what the capability requirement is.” View Quote View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I was wondering the same. If they need an antiship missle, can't they pick up the sat phone and call the Navy? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Do the Marines expect to be somewhere that the Navy isn't? The ocean is a big place and the enemy is not going to wait for the Navy to show up; the Navy also can't be everywhere at once, especially given how few ships it has today. |
|
Quoted: That isn’t really the wuestion I was answering, but I’d say less a pylon than a VLS cell on a truck. @warpusher should have a better answer, but that approach would probably be significantly more expensive than a single use system. Probably would need a weapons bus and a more capable mission computer and that might not be worth it for a 4-cell truck launcher like it is for a DDG VLS. View Quote For simplicity, for A2G you're usually carrying munitions to a certain point then dropping/firing. The A/C is the guided bus that get the munition to where it merely needs to self terminal guide to impact. There are some minor things aircrew can do to munitions in flight (change fuze times, reprogram impact points) but that's basically it. The majority of weaponeering/building is done back in bomb dumps by Ordnance/Ammo guys. Hence A/C dependent on the mission carry a mix of ordnance that is target dependent. For a multipurpose VLS truck cell there's things that are missing that are built into the A/C, mainly the vehicle to get the munition guided 85% of the way there. the complexity of "one stop shop" for both A2A and A2G is vast. You need multiple radar sets and arrays to do everything. Look at The Aegis Combat System...it can shoot both types of munitions, but its in a destroyer based package. You would have to effectively break down the system into shore based components. Aegis ashore is a good example, however its primarially set up for singly MDA activities and not multi role. For ground based items its probably more effective to have separate systems (a2A and A2g). The shooter part that holds the actual munitions should be capable of firing both munitions, but for simplified logistics have them dedicated to the system they serve. For example, a stretched HIMARs could be capable of firing PACs, Standards, TLAMs, ATACMS (pretty sure they can do this now) etc, etc. This vehicle could have the appropriate plug in ports to interface with the systems to use those munitions, making the vehicles interchangeable. The difficulty is going to be in combining everything into a shore based one stop shop for C4ISR. Its easier to do that when you're on a 600" long mobile platform with built in electrical generation, relatively enclosed to environmental factors, and multiple levels of command and maintenance (aka Arleigh Burke) than to try to spread all that out ashore. Its easier to set up smaller dedicated platforms ashore. Another example, look at the LCS. It's weapons systems were supposed to be plug and play with modules being relatively easy to swap out from the missions. It hasn't worked out like that. If you want both, you have to put the design work into all the things that go behind the scenes of employing munitions. Airplanes have bases of support personnel to target plan, prep munitions, etc., and ships are enclosed versions of that. |
|
Quoted:
I am all for it. As a layman, it certainly seems we lean on the Marines disproportionately to the size of their branch to accomplish military stuff. View Quote Kongsberg Defence Systems - Naval Strike Missile (NSM) Anti-Ship Live Firing [720p] |
|
Quoted: It would be more expensive. View Quote A multi mission TEL would require multi-domain SA or a more centralized C2 system with tha SA maintained elsewhere. |
|
Quoted: Then there is a training issue to go from single mission to multi mission. Shipboard CIC has a large team to handle AW, SUW, ASW,and Mobility missions. One of the knocks on Patriot's 2003 mishaps was that the crews were not well trained in maintaining SA and managing the information comes ng from their system and just shot when a contact tripped their doctrine statements. A multi mission TEL would require multi-domain SA or a more centralized C2 system with tha SA maintained elsewhere. View Quote Wasn't doctrine. It was the CAOCC orders. |
|
Quoted:
Or these Royal Marines on April 3, 1982. I bet they wish they had something more potent than rockets, machine guns, and a sniper rifle. That said they did pretty good with what they had. "The Argentine Corvette once again headed into the harbour and opened fire at 1155. To her commander’s frustration, the Guerrico;s 20mm guns jammed after the first salvo, as did the 100mm main gun. The 40mm mounting jammed after firing just six rounds. As she swung about to head back out to sea, Mills and the Marines unleashed severe hate on the Argentine ship with sustained automatic fire and rounds of anti-tank missiles from their 84mm Karl-Gustav launcher. Sergeant Leach was armed that day with a L42A1 rifle. A conversion of the Lee–Enfield No. 4, Mk. 1(T). The L42A1 was chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge and mounted the 3.5-power No. 32 scope. Lying on the table on the second floor of Shackleton House, the Sergeant sighted on the approaching ship’s bridge. By then, the Guerrico was once again facing the channel and closing on King Edward Point. A moment later, as the other Royal Marines began hammering away at the ship for a second time, Sergeant Leach began firing carefully aimed shots at the vessel. He directed his opening rounds at the five windows across the front of the bridge. At this point, only Captain Alfonso, the helmsman, and the quartermaster were manning that station as glass began to shatter. The three men were forced to crouch down behind ship’s structures to avoid being struck by the rapid succession of accurate shots coming from Leach’s sniper rifle. In his subsequent post operational report, Mills estimated that they engaged the Corvette at 550 metres and killed one sailor and injured four others. An Exocet launcher was put out of action and electrical cables to the 40mm gun were damaged." View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Read up on the battle for Guadalcanal. "The Argentine Corvette once again headed into the harbour and opened fire at 1155. To her commander’s frustration, the Guerrico;s 20mm guns jammed after the first salvo, as did the 100mm main gun. The 40mm mounting jammed after firing just six rounds. As she swung about to head back out to sea, Mills and the Marines unleashed severe hate on the Argentine ship with sustained automatic fire and rounds of anti-tank missiles from their 84mm Karl-Gustav launcher. Sergeant Leach was armed that day with a L42A1 rifle. A conversion of the Lee–Enfield No. 4, Mk. 1(T). The L42A1 was chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge and mounted the 3.5-power No. 32 scope. Lying on the table on the second floor of Shackleton House, the Sergeant sighted on the approaching ship’s bridge. By then, the Guerrico was once again facing the channel and closing on King Edward Point. A moment later, as the other Royal Marines began hammering away at the ship for a second time, Sergeant Leach began firing carefully aimed shots at the vessel. He directed his opening rounds at the five windows across the front of the bridge. At this point, only Captain Alfonso, the helmsman, and the quartermaster were manning that station as glass began to shatter. The three men were forced to crouch down behind ship’s structures to avoid being struck by the rapid succession of accurate shots coming from Leach’s sniper rifle. In his subsequent post operational report, Mills estimated that they engaged the Corvette at 550 metres and killed one sailor and injured four others. An Exocet launcher was put out of action and electrical cables to the 40mm gun were damaged." |
|
View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
The Navy has a history of putting Marines on islands then running away and leaving them View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Do the Marines expect to be somewhere that the Navy isn't? Shut the fuck up. |
|
This is kinda silly.
Did the USMC repeal the law that mandates 2 2/3 divisions and wings? What force structure do they give up for this? What MOS? Who trains it? Pershing II in the 80s was an Army program IIRC. The tomahawk TLAM cruise missiles we put in Germany in the 80s with nukes were a USAF. Program, IIRC. Both services have a long history and training pipeline for firing stuff like this. I don’t believe there are any Guadalcanal vets around to replicate defense battalions. The simplest answer would be ground launched TELs that use tomahawks, and rework the guidance system. I suppose you’d want some guidance and direction that has something to do with GPS which makes the USAF a better fit. But heck, why not? Maybe the army should practice some amphib ops since having no relevant training, experience, or programs of record doesn’t matter anymore. A few seconds of research indicates there already was an anti ship tomahawk variant, phased out in the 1990s for block IV. Since we seem to be successfully able to have launched a thousand or so in combat from the Navy and B52s, who are trained manned and equipped, why should we convert USMC force structure to ground launch something to add a redundant capability? The USN and USAF aren’t going anywhere. Oh by the way, who protects these from attack, be it air, ground? Since right now we don’t have that requirement when you fire them from ships and planes? Who does maintenance? USMC does their FA training at Sill, still? USMC signing up for all this? |
|
|
Quoted:
The Army would be the real winner in all of that. The minute the AF owned ADA, they would determine that F35s can do missile defense better with a tweak to the AIM-9 and would kill it entirely. Change my mind. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted: As I've said before...trade the CAS mission for the ADA mission amongst the Army and AF. Neither side wants to give up those missions for reasons. At the heart of the matter, the Army doesn't want to lose the manpower pool of ADA battalions (soldiers who can be assigned to do other Army tasks) and the AF doesn't want any encroachment into its fixed wing A2G mission. So instead of doing what makes sense, we will continue to hobble around with our patchwork system of interservice rules and missions that was created immediately after WWII. The minute the AF owned ADA, they would determine that F35s can do missile defense better with a tweak to the AIM-9 and would kill it entirely. Change my mind. |
|
Quoted:
I'll say this as charitably as I can. Shut the fuck up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted:
Shore launched Hellfire has been a thing for a few decades now https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6gXM_nygDlw/VwG8m76s7GI/AAAAAAAAF5Y/DEYNWgD4L_oky85zKiiOZUbH4A7sxNqbg/s1600/Swed%252BRBS17.jpg View Quote |
|
Lots of butthurt accounts in this thread. lol
|
|
|
|
Quoted: I'm using doctrine in the context of the Aegis Weapons System - operator programmed presets regarding track behavior like threat kinematics, SPINS, etc. View Quote Army has never deliberately engaged friendly air crew assets that I am aware of. I can't say the same for the AF or Navy. |
|
View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I'll say this as charitably as I can. Shut the fuck up. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Do the Marines expect to be somewhere that the Navy isn't? Shut the fuck up. Sometimes circumstances cause this. |
|
|
Quoted:
I wonder what the reason behind the big rush is View Quote ETA, I have read enough to know that the Navy did the prudent move. The rations, ammo, artillery, replacements that left on those ships were much needed but they would have been no good if sunk and dead. It doesn’t make the lowly infantry guy any happier knowing that when he is short handed, short on ammo, and f’n hungry. |
|
Quoted:
That's the benefit of a top notch PR dept. The Americal and 25 ID both were there. Don't see much mention of that in history, do you? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: The Navy has a history of putting Marines on islands then running away and leaving them Hard to beat the "we was abandoned!!" myth. Far more Sailors and Officers died at the seven battles of Guadacanal than Marines. Further, the prime casualty producer of Japanese ground forces from an Allied standpoint was slow starvation of the Japanese, which was due to Naval and Air action, not ground combat. Without a Navy, there is even less reason for an independent vestigial Marine Corps than there is now. They were brought to the island by that same navy, after that phase of the campaign. Plenty of combat left, but they weren't there when the USN left, early in the fight. |
|
|
Quoted:
@TxRabbitBane Can you imagine 6-12 of these launchers lined up and firing off a salvo at a group of ships 100 miles out! definetly would be a holy cheet moment on the recieving end View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes |
|
Quoted: Better if they launched from 12 different locations, timed to arrive on target at the same time as several air launch missiles. Let their counter measures try to hit multiple targets coming from 270 degree arc at the same time. View Quote launchers stagered and positioned on adjoining small islands and small barge's |
|
|
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.