Anon

http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/mi...E=Feb+15,+2006

According to this Feb06 Raytheon "fluff piece" press release, the USN PAM is intended for LCS. It doesn't even mention the SSGN, and i am sure a specialized underwater launched version would surely be needed in any case. Which so far as i know, no one has done one bit of work on.

With LCS's speed and low signiture, it is IMO a better platform for delivering these sorts of fires(and commando teams) in most all situations to begin with. I have to say PAM does not much impress me. Did we really need yet another subsonic GPS weapon?

SM-4 LASM is the weapon i favored.

Galrahn

How did a description regarding the potential of SACS turn into a conversation about the merits of SOF on the LCS vs the SSGN, much less a debate on which low yield naval precision guided weapon is best?

Clearly, I disagree with you on what I think was your main point. You are basically saying the SSGN, one the most powerful military ISR platforms in the world, which also happens to be the most lethal conventional weapon carrying platform on the planet, which happens to also be one of the most stealthy platforms on the same planet, with its capabilities that fit all 3 pillers of the Seapower 21 doctrine, at a lower cost than any other submarine project the US has undertaken in the last decade, is a "waste of money" in your opinion and the roles of this armed, stealthy, underwater SOF sea base is better suited for... the LCS!

LOL.

Then...

you base this argument on your dislike of the PAM system, which happens to be the only offensive weapon being developed for said LCS (unless your seriously advocating the 57mm, which is yet another joke); your advocation of the cancelled SM-4 LASM, which is basically a ten times more expensive, larger profile missile with the same yield but higher speed; your misunderstanding (or ignorance) regarding Sea Basing and the rest of Seapower 21 doctrine, and your apparent ignorance regarding the capability of submarines in general, and the SSGN program specifically.

Thanks for the discussion, but I'll pass responding next time.

Anon

Most lethal conventional weapons platform in history? I dont think it's even the most lethal sub.

LOL...who's smoking what here?

The Ohios were extremely expensive vessels, had just been refueled at great expense, and were converted at an expense greater still. They also have a huge crew($$$) by sub standards. To call them inexpensive is a joke.

I believe that existing subs are completely adequate for all SpecOps needs. That's exactly what the Va's were advertised to do. A lot of people agree with that assessment. It is a completely reasonable view.

I merely stated LASM was the sort of system we ought to be pursuing over PAM(LASM is a much faster missile resulting in a better chance of hitting targets of opportunity). I further stated using Subs for NSFS was not what i consider to be wise use of a 1.5 billion dollar platform with hundreds of sailors aboard.

The reason i mentioned LCS is because the article stated that PAM was only being developed for LCS, and not for the SSGN as you earlier suggested. And what i said is that current/projected air and surface/sub deployment systems are entirely adequate to perform all needed SpecOps insertions. We do not need SSGN's to be effective in the SpecOps game. What i also said was that IMO the LCS would be completely up to the task of delivering PAM fires and performing heliborne SpecOps insertions as needed.

We got along for decades just fine without SSGNs, and the only reasons these ones came along was to save them from becoming razorblades, they were only 'economical' cause we'd just spent gobs of money refueling them. Between their original pricetag, conversion costs, refueling costs, and crew costs, they're anything but cheap.

I simply do not believe we need SSGNs. I never said they're crap...i said we don't need them. Because we don't. We should have spent the money on other things instead.

A simple and legitimate argument.

Completley legitimate.

If you can't handle that, then just continue to carry on, i don't care.

Anon

These debates usually evolve into minor points and side debates(which often end up being more interesting than the original topic). Sorry you do not approve.

Dreadnought

Threads just seem to branch out, crash through barriers etc. They wont be denied.

__________________
Fortitude.....The strength to persist...The courage to endure.