Here is 3 TLAM-D MLRS ATACM. Its called ICM
Damn, I used it to make you feel better.
Oh now I see. You didn't mean the 16 inch shells we have now. Some mythical
shells that we will develop in the future. Is that the ChaChing of the cash register for even more cost required to get a BB?
shells that we will develop in the future. Is that the ChaChing of the cash register for even more cost required to get a BB?
Now a PGM 16" shell is quite different, but we already have guided shells, so we have one leg up on the R&D costs.
The bigger issue here is how you always raise a stink every time the issue of advanced 16" munitions is brought up. What, did you think we would keep using the same old dumb shells? Check my original post slick. I said we would need advanced munitions and later guns.
This is a hypothetical arguement, if you don't like it, or can't work with it, then give up or get out.
And yes we will still use TNT. It is stable enough to withstand the shock of firing at high charges.
No its because of the amount of metal in the shell and the design of that shell to produce fragmentation. Did you read all of my post?
Well it was YOUR argument."Less lethal range better at min Collateral Damage" Flip flopped on it now?
He said-she said. Whatever. At least I made an arguement. Which by the way you have not. I haven't seen you put any arguement forth considering battleships, making it difficult for me to form a solid arguement. So far your determined to simply "fish" and make small corrections. You aren't helping your arguement GG. In fact your only hindering it, by proving that your 2,000 pounders don't fulfill the same mission effects. And tomahawks don't either. So neither of those constitute support for NSFS in the FS triad.
Comment