- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
PACOM Chief wants the Army to create ship-killing units
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:26 am
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:26 am
Wonder who the potential adversaries they are talking about is? Isn't this what the Navy's job is considering this is a maritime ops?
The Navy isn't going to like this...
LINK
quote:
The head of U.S. Pacific Command on Tuesday said he wants the Army to one day be capable of killing ships of potential adversaries in the South China Sea.
quote:
"What the Army brings traditionally is what they always bring, which is mass and firepower and capability," he told an audience at leadership discussion in Washington, D.C., sponsored by Defense One.
The Navy isn't going to like this...
quote:
"I think the Army should be in the business of sinking ships with land-based, surface-to-ship missile systems," Harris said.
LINK
13
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:29 am to Spaceman Spiff
Uhhhh...don't we have a navy for this?
No wonder Trump says our brass are a bunch of idiots. Clearly, they are.
No wonder Trump says our brass are a bunch of idiots. Clearly, they are.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:30 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
Uhhhh...don't we have a navy for this?
No wonder Trump says our brass are a bunch of idiots. Clearly, they are.
Sounds like the brass are having a dick measuring contest.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:31 am to uptownsage
They all just want to WIN dammit 
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:36 am to Spaceman Spiff
How is it bad to have multiple platforms to accomplish something as important as this?
Much like the nuclear triad, I don't see the downfalls
Much like the nuclear triad, I don't see the downfalls
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:37 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
"I think the Army should be in the business of sinking ships with land-based, surface-to-ship missile systems," Harris said
Up until WWII, the army was in the business of sinking ships with land based systems. They called it "Costal Defense Artillery".
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:38 am to Spaceman Spiff
They're saying to kill ships from land, not sea. Why would that exclusively be the Navy's task?
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:39 am to Spaceman Spiff
I feel that would be a huge waste of money to allocate funding for the Army to do this. We have far and away the most powerful Navy in the world, who are more than capable of handling any type of ocean warfare. Even from land, there aren't many Army bases within 6 hours of an ocean.
If they feel there's a need to diversify, that money should go to the Marine Corps. They have far more maritime experience.
The Army is great at what they do. The Air Force is great at what they do. They Navy and USMC are great at what they do.
If they feel there's a need to diversify, that money should go to the Marine Corps. They have far more maritime experience.
The Army is great at what they do. The Air Force is great at what they do. They Navy and USMC are great at what they do.
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 9:41 am
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:40 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Up until WWII, the army was in the business of sinking ships with land based systems. They called it "Costal Defense Artillery".
Hey Darth! How are you doing, brother? Good to see you again.
That coastal defense arty didn't workout so well...
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:40 am to The Mick
quote:
They're saying to kill ships from land, not sea. Why would that exclusively be the Navy's task?
Why would a ship EVER get close enough to our land mass for a surface missile to have to strike?
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:41 am to The Mick
quote:
They're saying to kill ships from land, not sea. Why would that exclusively be the Navy's task?
Enemy ships should not even be allowed to get near enough land for this...
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:44 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
Hey Darth! How are you doing, brother? Good to see you again.
Hey. Still in CICU. May get to go home Sunday is what they're saying now. But I'm recovering great, numbers look dead on target for heart rate, rhythm, and blood pressure.
BTW, you've not lived until you've had drainage tubes pulled out of your chest.
quote:
That coastal defense arty didn't workout so well...
Well it was quite effective for centuries.
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 9:45 am
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:48 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Hey. Still in CICU. May get to go home Sunday is what they're saying now. But I'm recovering great, numbers look dead on target for heart rate, rhythm, and blood pressure.
Good to hear, man. Was concerned about you, brother. Not many discuss the good stuff on here all that much!
quote:
Well it was quite effective for centuries.
True. Until the advent of airplanes. All of this makes one wonder if there will be some island setups coming soon...
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 10:02 am
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:49 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:In other parts of the world perhaps, not near the US mainland no way.
Why would a ship EVER get close enough to our land mass for a surface missile to have to strike?
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:52 am to Darth_Vader
quote:
Up until WWII, the army was in the business of sinking ships with land based systems. They called it "Costal Defense Artillery".
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:54 am to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
...don't we have a navy for this?
yep and probably more powerful than almost all other navy's combined
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:56 am to The Mick
This could be an overture to Vietnam and Philippines. Their navies are not (and will not be) competitive to China's PLAN. Land based ASM is a cost effective way to counterbalance China's incursions into the SCS.
I'd think that land based missile systems could have greater range than ship based. Current known ship AGM's have a range of 500-800+ nautical miles. A land based system could be able to fire their weapons first.
I'd think that land based missile systems could have greater range than ship based. Current known ship AGM's have a range of 500-800+ nautical miles. A land based system could be able to fire their weapons first.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:58 am to Tigeralum2008
Seems to me that island bases (ala the Japanese in WWII) may be coming online then, since this is the Pacific theater is focus here.
This post was edited on 11/17/16 at 10:03 am
Posted on 11/17/16 at 9:59 am to Tigeralum2008
Yes, this has to do with island disputes.
Posted on 11/17/16 at 10:00 am to Spaceman Spiff
quote:
"I think the Army should be in the business of sinking ships with land-based, surface-to-ship missile systems," Harris said.
This seems like a reasonable capability. Can we not do this already though?
Page 1 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News