A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

asymetric warfare



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #9  
Old December 19th 03, 09:12 AM
Thomas J. Paladino Jr.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! John Cook Military Aviation 35 November 10th 03 11:46 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.