- 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
re: PACOM Chief wants the Army to create ship-killing units
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:37 am to King Teal
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:37 am to King Teal
quote:
The Army is the only branch that has perfected the business of war in EVERY aspect, from the behind-the-scenes that the public has no idea about, to the most visible, the infantryman actually putting the steel on target (armor and FA, as well).
Is that why Marines have to constantly fix yalls frick ups?
1
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:37 am to Spaceman Spiff
No worries. 
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:53 am to PairofDucks
quote:
Read my reply right above yours. You're arguing with a bunch of incorrect information.
Yes, and I'm saying its nothing but a money grab. They have artillary that can shoot 10 miles or more. That takes out the need for a short range missile. The army has absolutely no need for a long range missile. That's called the navy and air force.
Can navy ship fired anti-ship missiles not be fired from land? I'd certainly think they could, if they can't then there clearly isn't a need for them.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:58 am to baldona
quote:
Can navy ship fired anti-ship missiles not be fired from land? I'd certainly think they could, if they can't then there clearly isn't a need for them.
Most definitely they can. I'm more concerned with how they'd get close enough to our shores/installations in the first place. Artillery may be able to shoot that far, but all the ship has to do is sit just out of range and pound with missiles.
I'd like to think that the Navy would take care of that problem well before they got to within 100. However, I have a feeling that since PACOM wants this, this may be in an area around Japan, Korea, Vietnam and those areas to counter Chinese/NK aggression. Just a thought, though.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 7:04 am to Spaceman Spiff
That's just winning from all angles. Anybody else tired of all this winning?
Posted on 11/18/16 at 7:43 am to Spaceman Spiff
The Chinese use the DF-26 ASBM as a land based deterrence to our carriers. The Army wants something similar deployed against the Chinese, who are building their own carriers. It would reduce the need to build or deploy our carriers to counter theirs.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 7:57 am to Tigertracks
quote:
It would reduce the need to build or deploy our carriers to counter theirs.
Not necessarily.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 8:00 am to Tigertracks
quote:
The Chinese use the DF-26 ASBM as a land based deterrence to our carriers. The Army wants something similar deployed against the Chinese, who are building their own carriers. It would reduce the need to build or deploy our carriers to counter theirs.
LOL, do you honestly believe this? I mean seriously? The USA would wreck any Chinese carriers in a matter of hours if we really wanted to.
The army should not be concerned with carriers, if that ever becomes an issue they are going to have a lot more important things to worry about like an invasion of 500,000 chinese. The air force or navy would be needed to defend against a carrier fleet.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 8:21 am to baldona
quote:
if that ever becomes an issue they are going to have a lot more important things to worry about like an invasion of 500,000 chinese.
We do not have the conventional assets to stop that kind of thing. Well, depending on if they are willing to incur losses like they did (ie waves) in Korea.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 8:27 am to baldona
quote:
The army should not be concerned with carriers, if that ever becomes an issue they are going to have a lot more important things to worry about like an invasion of 500,000 chinese. The air force or navy would be needed to defend against a carrier fleet.
In warfare, you never directly rely on one weapons platform to negate a threat. You develop multiple layers that possess the same capability so the enemy cannot deny you the ability to destroy them.
We have a dire need to develop advanced shore defense systems. I feel it should be more focused on anti-cruise missile defense over Antiship. The days of battleship shore bombardment are long gone.
Our enemy will fire missiles from beyond range of artillery. We are talking 800-1200 miles from shore. The Army and Air Force need to develop countermeasures and deploy them soon.
The only ACM defense that I known of is the Aegis Cruiser and the patriot ABM battery. We need to deploy ACM lasers and radar systems.
We currently have radar blimps on the East Coast around the capital region that act as an early warning system. I do not know if they are deployed in other strategic areas nor do I know if the are any active countermeasures besides early detection.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 8:41 am to TigerFanInSouthland
The Marine Corps is a naval security force; there is a reason you never have, and never will, be charged with leading a combined DOD operation 
Posted on 11/18/16 at 8:57 am to Spaceman Spiff
There's no downside to this.
We should always be looking for the cheapest, most effective way to kill a ship.
Which is more efficient, using a $2.6 billion Virginia class submarine with 135 people on it to sink an enemy ship off the coast of an island, or using a (guessing here) five-man team with a $5 million missile to take out that same ship?
Sure, a submarine could project power anywhere, but for the same money, you could have more than 500 missile batteries protecting an area for several hundred miles. That's not too shabby, regardless of which branch does it.
We should always be looking for the cheapest, most effective way to kill a ship.
Which is more efficient, using a $2.6 billion Virginia class submarine with 135 people on it to sink an enemy ship off the coast of an island, or using a (guessing here) five-man team with a $5 million missile to take out that same ship?
Sure, a submarine could project power anywhere, but for the same money, you could have more than 500 missile batteries protecting an area for several hundred miles. That's not too shabby, regardless of which branch does it.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News