![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "phil hunt" wrote in message . .. On Thu, 18 Dec 2003 06:33:33 GMT, Thomas J. Paladino Jr. wrote: Another target for LCCMs would be surface ships. Telling tghe difference between a ship and water is easier than detecting land vehicles (detecting what sort of ship it is would also be quite easy, I imagine). Anti ship missiles would probably want ot have a bigger warhead than anti-land force missiles (or a 'swarm' option could be used). While 'swarming' ships with cruise missiles could possibly overwhelm their anti-missile systems, it is still not a feasible plan for an effective weapon system. Think about it; how many missiles would be needed to get through the anti-missile defenses and still cause major damage? 75? 100? More? Per ship? Where are all of these missiles going to be set up and launched from, and how are you going to keep them from being destroyed by a B-2 in the first 10 seconds of the war? Why would all the missiles have to be launched from the same location? LOL.... now you're talking about *multiple* lauch & storage facilities, for potentially 500-1000+ missiles, all cooridinated with each other to hit the same small targets *simultaneously*? The infrastructure and technology for that undertaking would be even more cost prohibitive, but just as futile. Even if they were somehow built and tested (extraordinarily unlikely); again, what would stop *all* of these facilities from being taken out in the first 10 seconds of the war? (And keep in mind that if just a couple of the facilities were disrupted it would exponentially decrease the effectiveness of the entire system). These systems would be nearly impossible to conceal, and would be eliminated right off the bat --if not preemptively during their testing phase (since nothing like this has been built, it would have to be tested thoroughly, and that would be impossible to conceal. From there, it wouldn't take long for US intel to deduce what the intent of such a system is, and order it eliminated). Face it, this is a bad idea. Thomas J. Paladino Jr. New York City |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |