Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Swift Sword
However, I have been lead to believe that in practice, the flexibility and responsiveness of 16 inch gun strikes left a bit to be desired when compared to 5 inch and smaller gun strikes (the bigger gun's longer range and throw weight not withstanding). This could be an inaccurate assesment, but I have heard it from the mouths of more than one Marine from more than one conflict.
|
Well I'm not a fan of reactivating the BBs either. I think advanced 5" guns and munitions plus AGS will do the job adequately.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Swift Sword
To name particulars, I am inclined to think that things like forward swept wings and supersonic capability might incur unneccessary inefficencies viz engineering difficulties and costs when applied to ground attack weapons that are essentially disposable. Might be good for my bottom line but not the contents of the Public's Granary.
|
Possibly, but they may also be a useful design compromise to improve slow-speed handling for a loitering UAV, while still permiting a resonable dash/cruise speed.
I agree it is unclear what additional costs are involved in going this route though. If you can build a multi-use airframe, you may save over the long haul with a larger production run. Or, you may not.
I just think you can get a lot of mileage out of the small airframe/turbojet combination, and packing them multiple per VLS cell seems like a natural fit.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Swift Sword
I am pretty hip to proposals for maritime use of long loiter UAVs in the ASW role and even better yer the countermine role.
|
Agreed.