Originally posted by Defcon 6
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Still, my original statement stands - it won't have the TMD capability of CG(X) (which is supposed to get a new air defense sensor suite).
Originally posted by Defcon 6
PAC-3s are better, but they're lack the range and altitude performance for wide-area coverage. That's where THAAD is supposed to come in.
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Try reading this report from the Congressional Budget Office describing some of their reservations with the DD(X) and LCS.
http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index...&from=0#anchor
Oh, and as a mental exercise, try fitting your BB in under their budgeted numbers. How many fewer DD(X)s and LCSs will there be?
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Plus, guess what, your BBs guns would've been useless in this situation - Baghdad is 340 miles from the coast.
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Yeah, I'm sure Rumsfeld is thinking hard about it.
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Originally posted by Defcon 6
BTW, I have no idea what your trying to say with your 'actual war' vs 'conflict' remark.
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Start with requirements. What are the target sets? At what range? How quickly must they be dealt with? (DPMIs over time). And recall that there are other systems in the military to deal with the corner cases (e.g. super-hardened bunkers, etc).
Note, the USAF believes that a measly 250lb bomb can deal with 80% of battlefield targets.
Smaller munitions means lower pricetags and larger numbers for a given weight and volume.
Smaller guns means smaller mounts and more stowed rounds for a given volume.
Smaller, in general, means cheaper.
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Or maybe... 16" guns are pointless, larger missiles and bombs can handle targets that need more firepower.
Let me clue you in on a little secret. You can always fire more smaller rounds to get the same area effect as a 16" shell, but you can never fire less than one 16" round.
This means that big guns have less flexibility. The can't be called close to friendlies. They can't be fired into cities (unless you don't mind flattening entire city blocks). They are massive overkill for hitting vehicles or fighting positions or even exposed infantry.
Originally posted by Defcon 6
So for each BB, you could by 1600 TacToms!
And each could be carried by any VLS ship in the fleet, not just a the handful of BBs you can afford.
And that doesn't even count the cost of arming the BB!
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Originally posted by Defcon 6
Comment