We should also see quad packed ESSM Blk II in a new launcher on the CVNs and LHAs as that contract was finally awarded. If its 4 cells like the BAE brochure that should double the ready rounds of ESSM on these ships.
In the linking good things together idea, I remain optimistic someone will put the NSM on MH-60. I'd half be curious to find a way to get it on AH-1Z.
I'm a big fan. Cheaper, better and faster is good. Particularly when it frees to Army CDR from the tyranny of some USAF fires control cell Major that decides there are more important "Joint" read USAF targets.
Though a SM-6 is big enough for a mission kill on a PLAN DDG. Is it right for land targets?
And the PLA will be happy. Fewer sets of code to steal and counter-counters to field
If you read the nation’s founding documents, you’ll see that there were two, distinct, branches of the military, an Army and a Navy. If we had a legitimate conservative movement in this nation, we’d have folks trying to hold that line.
The idea that the Army should be stripped of its air arm was the start of the problem. Creating an Air Force did nothing to improve the defense of our nation. The Army recreated a air force out of rotary craft, while the Pentagon staff made room for another set of brass. To be an effective fighting force an army commander needs control of his air arm. Creating an entire service out of what should be part of the army was a bad idea, and we are reaping the consequences of it today. The Air Force adds nothing to the national defense that the Army Air Corps couldn’t do better, faster, and cheaper.
Great article as always. Comments on The Drive seemed focused on off-road mobility and the system's deployment in the Pacific theatre, as in what country would be willing to allow such a system on their turf??? Love the economy of scale benefit & not reinventing the wheel...
Can't get them produced and into Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Guam, etc. quickly enough. Anti-air first to protect airfields and other installations (hardening aircraft shelters wouldn't hurt, either). Then move in strike assets, maritime and land attack. The more anti-missile interceptors in the area, the more you stress China as to how many missiles they need to attack land based installations of the US, Taiwan, and ships. Making it a 10:1 ratio for such an attack means the Chinese won't be able to keep up...it should be enough to deter them or wreck them. This is like putting additional hulls in the water, unsinkable ones, hard to find and moving around. We need to count VLS tubes, on land and water. I am assuming the Army systems will work in integrated fires with AEGIS, Spy-6, F-35 downlinks, etc.
Concur with your comments on centralized control making things worse. There are examples of joint use that make sense: C130s, F-4, H-60s and UH-1Ns all worked out well as joint efforts that didn’t start out that way.
These what-if's have been going on for decades, with all sorts of 'artist renderings'...why not?
The idea always gets stopped, very likely by a star or a conference room full of stars, who've not been deployed or out to sea in a decade, gaffawing and giggling at an idea, that they can't wrap their heads around because they lack any sense of resourcefulness, imagination or, creativity.
Good, Now the bigger question is can these missiles be produced quickly (months, not years) and in quantity. We need many of all types of missiles in large quants yesterday. If this is something that can be ramped up for delivery in 2030 I fear it will be too late to the party even if they are just used (I hope) for deterrence
We should also see quad packed ESSM Blk II in a new launcher on the CVNs and LHAs as that contract was finally awarded. If its 4 cells like the BAE brochure that should double the ready rounds of ESSM on these ships.
In the linking good things together idea, I remain optimistic someone will put the NSM on MH-60. I'd half be curious to find a way to get it on AH-1Z.
I'm a big fan. Cheaper, better and faster is good. Particularly when it frees to Army CDR from the tyranny of some USAF fires control cell Major that decides there are more important "Joint" read USAF targets.
Though a SM-6 is big enough for a mission kill on a PLAN DDG. Is it right for land targets?
And the PLA will be happy. Fewer sets of code to steal and counter-counters to field
If you read the nation’s founding documents, you’ll see that there were two, distinct, branches of the military, an Army and a Navy. If we had a legitimate conservative movement in this nation, we’d have folks trying to hold that line.
The idea that the Army should be stripped of its air arm was the start of the problem. Creating an Air Force did nothing to improve the defense of our nation. The Army recreated a air force out of rotary craft, while the Pentagon staff made room for another set of brass. To be an effective fighting force an army commander needs control of his air arm. Creating an entire service out of what should be part of the army was a bad idea, and we are reaping the consequences of it today. The Air Force adds nothing to the national defense that the Army Air Corps couldn’t do better, faster, and cheaper.
Great article as always. Comments on The Drive seemed focused on off-road mobility and the system's deployment in the Pacific theatre, as in what country would be willing to allow such a system on their turf??? Love the economy of scale benefit & not reinventing the wheel...
This is why Russia doesn't want NATO on their borders.
Can't get them produced and into Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Guam, etc. quickly enough. Anti-air first to protect airfields and other installations (hardening aircraft shelters wouldn't hurt, either). Then move in strike assets, maritime and land attack. The more anti-missile interceptors in the area, the more you stress China as to how many missiles they need to attack land based installations of the US, Taiwan, and ships. Making it a 10:1 ratio for such an attack means the Chinese won't be able to keep up...it should be enough to deter them or wreck them. This is like putting additional hulls in the water, unsinkable ones, hard to find and moving around. We need to count VLS tubes, on land and water. I am assuming the Army systems will work in integrated fires with AEGIS, Spy-6, F-35 downlinks, etc.
Now if they could just place them in other locations beside Guam...
It's the return of US Army Coastal Artillery though it's not being called that.
Concur with your comments on centralized control making things worse. There are examples of joint use that make sense: C130s, F-4, H-60s and UH-1Ns all worked out well as joint efforts that didn’t start out that way.
I really like this. I do seem to recall there was a "Typhon" AAW weapons system years ago that did not actually go into production.
Makes sense to me....
Let's buy a LOT of them!
"Now we just need for strategic airlift and sealift to give it better global mobility."
As a C-5 pilot, I'm literally salivating over this.
These what-if's have been going on for decades, with all sorts of 'artist renderings'...why not?
The idea always gets stopped, very likely by a star or a conference room full of stars, who've not been deployed or out to sea in a decade, gaffawing and giggling at an idea, that they can't wrap their heads around because they lack any sense of resourcefulness, imagination or, creativity.
Good, Now the bigger question is can these missiles be produced quickly (months, not years) and in quantity. We need many of all types of missiles in large quants yesterday. If this is something that can be ramped up for delivery in 2030 I fear it will be too late to the party even if they are just used (I hope) for deterrence
The best joint programs begin as single service, and are adapted to fit others requirements.