Help support TMP


"A New Concept for Air Defense" Topic


6 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please remember that some of our members are children, and act appropriately.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board


Areas of Interest

Modern

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Top-Rated Ruleset

FUBAR


Rating: gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star gold star 


Featured Showcase Article

C-in-C's 1:285 Soviet SAU122

Need some armored artillery vehicles?


Featured Workbench Article

Adam Paints the Brigadier

Adam8472 Fezian takes inspiration from Doctor Who.


Featured Profile Article

The Simtac Tour

The Editor is invited to tour the factory of Simtac, a U.S. manufacturer of figures in nearly all periods, scales, and genres.


Current Poll


677 hits since 25 Feb 2015
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Tango0125 Feb 2015 10:02 p.m. PST

"The newest concept being forwarded by U.S. Navy surface fleet leaders is "distributed lethality", in which almost every combatant and noncombatant surface ship would wield offensive missiles such as the Naval Strike Missile (NSM) or Long Range Anti-ship Missile (LRASM). The concept's central idea is that deploying a large number of U.S. ships able to threaten enemy ships, aircraft, or shore facilities will create a potentially unmanageable targeting problem for potential adversaries. This, it is argued, could deter opponents from pursuing aggression and in conflict could compel adversaries to increase their defensive efforts, constrain their maneuver, and spend valuable time finding and defeating U.S. forces in detail.

Implementing this concept should start with the Navy's surface combatants, rather than its numerous unarmed non-combatant ships. Arming the Navy's more than 60 logistics and support ships with offensive missiles and providing them the command and control systems to coordinate their fires will be costly. And once equipped, these noncombatant ships will become more attractive targets while not being better able to protect themselves unless further investments are made in defensive systems. In the end, offensive operations could distract noncombatant ships from their primary missions and reduce the endurance of combatants that depend on them for fuel and to conduct less stressing missions such as training and counter-piracy.

Given the challenges in using supply and support ships for offensive missions, the first step to implement distributed lethality should be to ensure all the Navy's surface warships are able to conduct offensive operations. These consist of amphibious ships and surface combatants…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Coelacanth193825 Feb 2015 10:08 p.m. PST

I was hoping that someone found out a way to weaponize clouds…

VonTed26 Feb 2015 5:05 a.m. PST

Does the US still have a "large" number of ships to go around?

Jemima Fawr26 Feb 2015 5:30 a.m. PST

Air defence?

49mountain26 Feb 2015 2:43 p.m. PST

The US is going to need a lot more ships if this is the concept / tactic to be used for Fleet or Task Force deployment. Right now less than 250(?) ships. Current want is 300 ships. Used to be a 600 ship Navy was the goal. Can we afford more ships?

Lion in the Stars26 Feb 2015 8:33 p.m. PST

Can we afford more ships?
Thing is, for every 3 ships, only ONE is actually available and deployed.

A 300-ship navy would allow for ~100 ships of various classes to be deployed at any given time.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.