View Poll Results: Is US military action against North Korea imminent?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. Kim Jong Un will calm down or Obama will ignore him.

    54 50.94%
  • North Korea will be hit with US air, drone and missle strikes.

    14 13.21%
  • A full land invasion of North Korea by US forces is coming soon.

    18 16.98%
  • Other

    20 18.87%
Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 142

Thread: War/military action against North Korea predictions

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Marines have UAV squadrons. But this distracts from my point. If the Air Force was created to dog fight and now exist in a world where dog fighting has been made obsolete and unnecessary, what has the Air Force been doing for the last two decades tinkering around with a weapon system that needs the past? Tactics change as tecnology introduces better ways to kill. Dogfighting is an old tactic that was necessary in wars of old. It no longer is.





    It doesn't matter. They can have 1,000. If they get destroyed on the tarmac what does that number do for them, but show how they wasted their money? As it is we have sunk a ridiculous amount of money purchasing F/A-22s and we are afraid to use them. This means they are unnecessarily waiting around for a war that is somehow going to pull the past forward.

    Besides, just because the F/A-22 Program was shelved doesn't mean technology is stopped dead in its tracks.
    What can I say, except in the 1950's some idiots said that the day of air to air combat where aircraft got up close and personal were over. So they manufactured the F-4 Phantom without a gun.

    The idea behind the F-22 is that it doesn't have to get close to it's adversary, that it sees the enemy before he sees him.

    A Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA is likely to see a F-15 before the F-15 sees the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA.

  2. #122
    Banned
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Last Seen
    10-14-15 @ 09:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    56,981

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    North Korea Tells Embassies In Pyongyang To Consider Evacuating.....



    North Korea has told foreign embassies in Pyongyang to consider evacuating their employees because it cannot guarantee their safety in the event of conflict after Sunday, BBC reports.

    Russia and the UK said there were no outward signs of tension in the North Korean capital, and that it is not planning to evacuate at this stage.

    South Korean news agency Yonhap reports that the 53,000 North Korean workers employed in the Kaesong industrial complex — a South-financed project that accounts for up to 40 percent of the North's revenue — did not show up for work on April 5.

    Read more: Latest North Korea War Talk - Business Insider

    Now he is telling Foreign Embassies to get their people out!

  3. #123
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,015

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    What can I say, except in the 1950's some idiots said that the day of air to air combat where aircraft got up close and personal were over. So they manufactured the F-4 Phantom without a gun.
    That would have been premature and dangerous. It would have actually been a gamble considering that our Soviet enemy was capable of participating in an air war. As it was, there were dog fights over Vietnam. But history shows that such a prediction was merely before its time. Fortunately we did not have an engagement with the Soviets. After Vietnam, our technology became such that dogfights were made largely obsolete. Our technology has allowed us to direct primary targetting from bombers, rockets, and naval precision to airfields, infrastructure, and large enemy ground mechs from very far distances.

    When we left our battleships in history we said goodbye to a naval tradition of ship-to-ship combat. The argument for naval gunfire was legit, but it disregarded the fact that we were not losing naval gunfire. The technology merely changed and so did the nare of warfare. We still have naval gunfire capabilities, but we have added UAV strikes to our arsenol.

    Battleship warfare is history. So is the dogfight. They both themed around the duel. In a word where we maintain absolute superiority in technology, maneuver warfare, and combined arms, the duel is an ancient tradition.


    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    The idea behind the F-22 is that it doesn't have to get close to it's adversary, that it sees the enemy before he sees him.
    It also relies on an enemy that is allowed to exist. With airfields destroyed before the ground war even begins, the troop already has the benefit of air superiority. The enemy jets that do manage to escape the initial onslought will not survive beyond 12 hours. They will have nowhere to land and no way to refuel. Look at North Korea. Do you think that country will have a single airfield in operation after a few days of bombing? What is the role of the F/A-22 after that occurs? The troop needs the A-10, not the F/A-22.

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    A Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA is likely to see a F-15 before the F-15 sees the Sukhoi T-50 PAK FA.
    I know it's the same post, but it allows me to try to make the point again... This would have been an issue in the past. The nature of air superiority has changed. With every war since World War II, we have seen less and less dogfighting as a means to air superiority. From the Gulf War on, it has been non-existent. War with Russia is not going to happen for a very black/white reason and war with China would be economically stupid on both sides. Since most things revolve around economic issues, even China has decided to extend a capitalist hand towards America rather than risk conflict over an international nuisance like North Korea. Our present and future wars will be against people and nations who can't compete technologically or economically. Therefore, our conflicts are only made hard by politicians and a military clinging to past archaic warfare doctrines, not an actual enemy.

    Afghanistan - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy and military arrogance. Later problems revolved around political idiocy and a military lack of mission.

    Iraq - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy. Later problems revolved around politicial idiocy.

    Neither conflict was extended due to the enemy's ability other than the ability to sustain itself under our politician's cowardice and lack of commitment.


    Arguing to extend the ability to dogfight against a non-existent enemy is like preparing ourselves for the great naval battles that aren't coming. Our technology now allows us to deal with the improbable dogfight and the sea battle without invoking past themes and future unnecessary toys. Like I've stated before, we live in an age where we are buying Ferraris despite our troops only needing SUVs.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    That would have been premature and dangerous. It would have actually been a gamble considering that our Soviet enemy was capable of participating in an air war. As it was, there were dog fights over Vietnam. But history shows that such a prediction was merely before its time. Fortunately we did not have an engagement with the Soviets. After Vietnam, our technology became such that dogfights were made largely obsolete. Our technology has allowed us to direct primary targetting from bombers, rockets, and naval precision to airfields, infrastructure, and large enemy ground mechs from very far distances.

    When we left our battleships in history we said goodbye to a naval tradition of ship-to-ship combat. The argument for naval gunfire was legit, but it disregarded the fact that we were not losing naval gunfire. The technology merely changed and so did the nare of warfare. We still have naval gunfire capabilities, but we have added UAV strikes to our arsenol.

    Battleship warfare is history. So is the dogfight. They both themed around the duel. In a word where we maintain absolute superiority in technology, maneuver warfare, and combined arms, the duel is an ancient tradition.




    It also relies on an enemy that is allowed to exist. With airfields destroyed before the ground war even begins, the troop already has the benefit of air superiority. The enemy jets that do manage to escape the initial onslought will not survive beyond 12 hours. They will have nowhere to land and no way to refuel. Look at North Korea. Do you think that country will have a single airfield in operation after a few days of bombing? What is the role of the F/A-22 after that occurs? The troop needs the A-10, not the F/A-22.



    I know it's the same post, but it allows me to try to make the point again... This would have been an issue in the past. The nature of air superiority has changed. With every war since World War II, we have seen less and less dogfighting as a means to air superiority. From the Gulf War on, it has been non-existent. War with Russia is not going to happen for a very black/white reason and war with China would be economically stupid on both sides. Since most things revolve around economic issues, even China has decided to extend a capitalist hand towards America rather than risk conflict over an international nuisance like North Korea. Our present and future wars will be against people and nations who can't compete technologically or economically. Therefore, our conflicts are only made hard by politicians and a military clinging to past archaic warfare doctrines, not an actual enemy.

    Afghanistan - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy and military arrogance. Later problems revolved around political idiocy and a military lack of mission.

    Iraq - Early problems revolved around politicial idiocy. Later problems revolved around politicial idiocy.

    Neither conflict was extended due to the enemy's ability other than the ability to sustain itself under our politician's cowardice and lack of commitment.


    Arguing to extend the ability to dogfight against a non-existent enemy is like preparing ourselves for the great naval battles that aren't coming. Our technology now allows us to deal with the improbable dogfight and the sea battle without invoking past themes and future unnecessary toys. Like I've stated before, we live in an age where we are buying Ferraris despite our troops only needing SUVs.
    Where do I start ?

    I think I'll skip over how a CSG or any ship defends itself from an air attack. It involves three to four layers of defense.

    You are aware that air to air missiles have it's limits, they can't be used if the target is to close, that's when you have to use your guns and get up close and personal aka dog fight.

    If the Navy and Air Force believed that the day of fighters having guns/cannons and being involved in dog fights was history, then the Navy's "Top Gun" and the Air Force "Red Flag" would have been eliminated. (I sure hope the Obama White House doesn't see this post.)

    But something I'm an expert at, NSFS. You said >"We still have naval gunfire capabilities"< We have very little naval gunfire capabilities. Today the U.S. Navy only has one naval gun capable of providing Naval Shore Gunfire Support, the 5"/54. We no longer have 16", 8", 6" and the 5"/38 guns.

    Naval gun fire is a completely diffrent ball game compared to land artillery. Naval guns are huge rifles that have a flat projectory, a high velocity with a high kenetic energy. Even the dispertion of the naval projectile fragmentaion is competely diffrent than an artillery projectile.
    It's also a very complex procedure for calling in a NSFS mission comapred to artillery. It's complex for the NGF spotter on shore and even more complex for the sailors on the ship.

    During the Vietnam War, the naval 5"38 gun that was found on Gearing class destroyers, all gun cruisers and Iowa class battleships were excellent for providing NSFS. With the 38 cal. barrel they were able to hit targets on reverse slopes of hills and mountains.

    During the Vietnam War when the newer DD's were on the gun line they had the 5"/54 guns. ( the only gun that is found on our destroyers and cruisers today) They were automatic and could fire a lot of savos in a minute. But because they had a 54 cal. barrel they couldn't hit some targets on reverse slopes and because the 5"/54 gun was fed from a magazine, if during a fire mission you all of a sudden found that you needed to switch over from a VT fuse to a FD fuse or needed a WP round instead of a HE round, the gun magazine on the ship had to be removed and reloaded with what you needed, a 20 minute process if I remember correctly.

    I remember one incident when we had a Adams class DD on the gun line that had the 5"/54. Our FAC asked me to mark a target with WP for a close air support mission. It took almost 30 minutes before I could mark that target. Way to long ! Jets today have an extremely short loiter time over the battlefield.

    As for the Iowa class BB's. If you ever personaly wittnes one of these excellent weapons platforms fire it's 16" guns you would be in awe. And if you were on shore and were able to see what a 2.750 lb. AP round or 2,000 lb HE round does, you aren't going to say the Iowa class BB's are obsolete.

    During my days the 16" gun was able to hit a barrel with a 2.750 pound round from 24 miles away. By the late 1980's the 16" gun was evolving with rocket assist and giving them a 100 mile range and precion guided rounds and they were even playing around with the idea of using them for ASW (anti submarine warfare) I guess you can figure out what they were thinking of.

    In just one hour an Iowa class BB can put more tons of ordance on target than an entire carrier air wing could in 24 hours. And night time, fog, low clouds, rain, etc. doesn't stop naval guns from accomplishing their mission like it does for aircraft.

    As for the Marine grunts on shore, precision ordance are useless when your dealing with area targets like enemy troops in the open.

    After Vietnam during the 1970's when the Democrats were in the process of dismantling our military all 6" and 8" cruisers were decomissioned. The U.S. Marines only had naval 5" gun destroyers to rely on for NSFS and all of the Gearing class DD's were being decommisioned.

    1981 and Reagan becomes POTUS and discovers our military is in worse shape than we were told.

    The original idea was to reactivate all of the 8" gun cruisers. Secretary of the Navy John Leyman said lets go for the whole enchalada and reactivate all four of the Iowa class BB's and at the same time we wouild also be filling the carrier gap that the Navy was experiancing and our Marines will have real NSFS that they don't have at this time. I think the Soviets feared the Iowa class BB's more than our carriers.

    After the Cold War Congress passed a law that all four Iowa's were to be kept in a high state of readiness in our naval reserve fleet so they could be called back to service during an emergency. That these Iowa's were to remain in the reserve fleet untill a new naval ship that is armed with a gun that would be capable of providing NSFS for the Marine Corps. That gun was the 155 MM naval gun that Obama killed.

    Back track: President Clinton ignored Congress and decided to turn all of the Iowa class BB's in to meuseums. Then he ordered that all of the spare 16" barrels for the Iowa's be cut up and sold for scrap. No spare barrels, the Iowa's are useless. Congress reaction to Clinton breaking the law ? We can't impeach him a second time.

    As you may remember, the Iowas were probably one of the most feared weapons platforms on the surface of the Earth. Besides it's nine 16" guns and it's twenty 5"/38 guns it also carried eight Tomahawk SSCM (Nuke Capable) and more than enough Harpoon anti-ship missiles. And it also had UAV's (droanes)

    With the Iowa's 12" armor belt, they were unsinkable because there is no weapon that can penterate 12" of armor plating. If an Iowa were to be hit by a anti-ship cruise missile you send a sailor over the side with a bucket of paint and a paint brush.

    Now there was a seminar and a debate back in the 90's when their was a movement to reactivate all of the Iowa's before Clinton turned them in to museums. Can the keel of an Iowa be broken by exploding torpedos under the keel ? And how many torpedos would it take ? You had naval archietect, structural engineers, naval engineers, weapons experts all engaged in the debate. Conclusion, some believed that the keel couldn't be broken while other believed if enough torpedos could be detanated under the keel. the keel would break.
    Last edited by APACHERAT; 04-09-13 at 04:12 PM.

  5. #125
    Educator
    Chiefgator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Lake Jem, FL pop:35
    Last Seen
    05-08-15 @ 08:21 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,172

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    <snip>
    Now there was a seminar and a debate back in the 90's when their was a movement to reactivate all of the Iowa's before Clinton turned them in to museums. Can the keel of an Iowa be broken by exploding torpedos under the keel ? And how many torpedos would it take ? You had naval archietect, structural engineers, naval engineers, weapons experts all engaged in the debate. Conclusion, some believed that the keel couldn't be broken while other believed if enough torpedos could be detanated under the keel. the keel would break.
    The biggest vulnerability to the Iowa Class BB was the rudder, propeller area. Take out the ability to steer and she is severely limited in what she can do. if she is DIW, breaking the keel is a moot point.
    As a dreamer of dreams and a travellin' man, I have chalked up many a mile.
    Read dozens of books about heroes and crooks and I've learned much from both of their styles!

  6. #126
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    N. Korea is aware that we currently have a socialist regime in office and is only trying to get money/concessions. It would be stupid, on many different levels for him to actually strike. First, he will lose. He cannot take out our full nuclear capability, so, poof, there goes him and his country if he wants to go nuclear. Second, if his missiles were to actually get through, with the exception of Austin, he would be hurting socialism in America with the cities he has targeted. Again, excepting Austin, he would kill maybe 20-30 million, 85% or so that are socialist also, it would stir up anti-socialist tendencies in the US and pretty much end Dems from getting the White house for many years to come, thus killing off or suppressing any tendencies towards socialism in the US for a very longtime. Considering the number of socialist both here and there that would die, it would be a very good thing for the world if he would actually do it and our defense systems were not capable of stopping it. If China is stupid enough to back him going nuclear, then we could really put a dent in socialist world wide, again, a very good thing for mankind.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #127
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:02 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,015

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by APACHERAT View Post
    Where do I start ?
    How about with my point instead of going into a class on past weaponry. Complain all you want about the F/A-22, but the simple fact is that dogfights have not been a feature in any war since Vietnam. It has been a program to line pockets and provide jobs. That's it.

    The Iowa has no place in today's or the future's battlefield. The troop needs systems that can hit targets much further than 24 miles away and we have bombs that do considerably more damage.

    There was a time that the bow and arrow ruled Asia. There was a time that the skirmish ruled the ground battles. There was a time when great naval battles sought control of the seas. There was a time when air combat gained air superiority and paved the way for bombers. It is now 2013. Instead of praising technology that was meant to win past wars, embrace the future. You keep avoiding the point.

    Despite what older systems could do, we have current systems that do better.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #128
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by Chiefgator View Post
    The biggest vulnerability to the Iowa Class BB was the rudder, propeller area. Take out the ability to steer and she is severely limited in what she can do. if she is DIW, breaking the keel is a moot point.
    That's true with any ship.

    The Iowa's always had destroyer escorts.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Last Seen
    02-18-14 @ 08:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    5,660

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Kim Jong Un will make up with his estranged lover, start getting some and the US + S Korea will be a memory

  10. #130
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Behind the Orange Curtain
    Last Seen
    01-30-15 @ 01:29 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    15,633

    Re: War/military action against North Korea predictions

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    How about with my point instead of going into a class on past weaponry. Complain all you want about the F/A-22, but the simple fact is that dogfights have not been a feature in any war since Vietnam. It has been a program to line pockets and provide jobs. That's it.

    The Iowa has no place in today's or the future's battlefield. The troop needs systems that can hit targets much further than 24 miles away and we have bombs that do considerably more damage.



    .
    Yesterday I said that Obama canceled the Navy's new 155MM gun, I was wrong, he canceled the Navy's rail gun.

    The new 155MM gun will be able to deliver guided ordnance out to 60 miles. What's the weight of a 155 MM projectile ? Usually around 100 lb.s, like the Hellfire missile, only effective against a small target.

    The Navy's 155MM gun is planned to be the main gun and only gun of the new Zumwalt class DD. We plan to build three of them. That's right, I guess Obama believes we only need three Zumwalt class destroyers.

    So it was interesting looking at the naval blogs and forums yesterday to see what the real proffesionals were saying. It was interesting how many brought up the Iowa class BB's. that it was a huge mistake turning these weapons platforms in to museums.

    >" During Operation DESERT STORM battleships USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI fired more than 1.000 rounds of 16" ammunition in support of ground operations. USS MISSOURI alone fired more than one million pounds of ordnance. Using Remotely Piloted Vehicles and Marine spotters ashore, targets included artillery, mortar and missile positions, ammunition storage facilities and a Silkworm missile site. USS WISCONSIN's RPVs provided on-site reconnaissance support from 11 nautical miles out for advancing Marines. On 03 February 1991 the battleship USS MISSOURI (BB-63) fired eight 1.25-ton shells from its 16-inch guns at prefabricated concrete command and control bunkers Iraq was moving into Kuwait, destroying the bunkers. The barrage, totalling 18,000 pounds of high explosives, marked the first combat firing of the MISSOURI's 16-inch guns since the Korean War, and was in support of Marines and coalition ground forces. This also marked the first use of a Remotely Piloted Vehicle (RPV) for gun fire spotting in a hostile environment. And on 03 February USS MISSOURI destroyed an Iraqi artillery emplacement. On 06 February USS MISSOURI destroyed 4 artillery emplacements and a command bunker with another 16-inch gun barrage in support of Marines. In a second salvo, the MISSOURI fired 28 16-inch rounds against a radar control site complex, completely destroying it. 5-inch batteries also engaged. MISSOURI had fired a total of 112 16-inch shells and 12 five-inch rounds in 8 fire support missions over 48 hours.


    Within two hours of relieving its sister battleship, USS WISCONSIN (BB 64) conducted its first naval gunffre support mission since the Korean War, firing an 11-round salvo with its 16-inch guns and destroying an Iraqi artillery battery in southern Kuwait. Secondary explosions reported. USS NICHOLAS escorted the battleship. USMC OV-10 called in the fire mission. On 07 February USS WISCONSIN pounded Iraqi artillery, electronic warfare and naval sites with its 16 inch guns. 50 rounds sunk or severely damaged 15 boats, destroyed piers at Khawr al-Mufattah Marina. 19 rounds also fired at artillery and missile sites. On 08 February USS WISCONSIN attacked a dozen Iraqi artillery emplacements with 36 rounds of its 16-inch guns in support of a Marine reconnaissance probe into occupied Kuwait. Using its remotely pilot vehicle to visually relay pictures and gun-firing coordinates of targets, the battleships's harassment and interdiction mission was designed to pin down and confuse Iraqi gunners during the Marine attack. Off Khafji, Saudi Arabia, WISCONSIN also blasted bunkers, troops and artillery sites, and continued its naval gunfire missions responding to calls for fire from U.S. and coalition forces on 09 February. Then on 12 February USS MISSOURI, USMC aircraft/artillery, and Saudi artillery mounted a combined arms attack on multiple fixed-position targets (Iraqi troops, artillery, a hardened command bunker and tanks) in southern Kuwait. The battleship expended 60 rounds in 9 naval gunfire support missions. On 21 February USS WISCONSIN destroyed a command complex, firing 50 rounds from off Khafji. RPVs spotted targets and provided coastline reconnaissance. Two days later USS MISSOURI destroyed targets on Favlaka Island off the coast of Kuwait City. On 24 February CINCCENTCOM announced the initiation of the ground offensive, and USS MISSOURI and USS WISCONSIN fired at targets in occupied Kuwait in support of the ground offensive. The next day USS WISCONSIN and USS MISSOURI continued naval gunfire support, with MISSOURI alone firing 133 rounds or 125 tons of ordnance on targets. "<


    Naval Gunfire Support: what if we must land troops?

    War/military action against North Korea predictions-navalgunsvietnamwarrethink-jpg

    Consider that firing the main guns alone, and using light projectiles, an Iowa-class battleship can deliver 34, 200 pounds of ordnance per minute. That's 513 tons in a half hour, or the same as two full carrier strikes (72 F/A-18 aircraft) that take several times as long to deliver, assuming "the (fighter-) bombers will get through". The 1983 air strike debacle reminds us against an alerted and ready enemy with fully functioning Integrated Air Defense system, short of full-scale nation-state war to take out the air defenses, the ability to surgically strike while hoping in the aftermath to stay at a quasi-peace requires ordnance that delivers itself to the target. In over one hour's bombardment, an Iowa can actually dish out more surgical or area firepower than several Nimitz class carriers, and with the relative cost of the 16" shells, this is done much more cheaply, and without risking aircraft and pilots. The limit to this is, of course, range. However, this firepower is far more than any current vessel, and the current U.S. Navy is admittedly extremely lacking in naval gunfire capability for cheap shore bombardment. Even with the small caliber, guided gun projectile systems under development, things are not too good there, when you consider that these small 5" shells already don't have much explosive warhead content as guidance electronics encroach. Battleships are the only vessels that could actually survive the kinds of threats that are likely to appear in littoral areas once they get within gun range of their targets.

    Maximizing 16 Inch guns: Scramjet Projectiles, a Revolutionary Weapon System

    War/military action against North Korea predictions-scramjetbattleshipshell-jpg

    Scramjet projectiles, using technology now being developed for Navy and Air Force missiles, would enormously increase Navy firepower and reach -- by several orders of magnitude. The great penetration capability of these extremely high velocity rounds would be especially effective in attacking caves and deep installations. The very high velocity also means they could eventually provide highly responsive tactical fire support out to 200 miles, that could support future very deep Army Airborne and marine expeditionary force lodgments. Unlike the scramjet missiles being developed for ship Vertical Launch System (VLS) launching from soft surface ships, the armored BBG-21's projectiles can be replenished at sea; moreover, the former's number of missiles deployed is limited by the number of available VLS cells. (The DDX will have 60 to 80 cells.) The BBG-21 could carry up to 1300 scramjet projectiles, if need be, as well as 96 VLS cells devoted to land attack missiles, but generally in normal practice would probably carry about 500 16-inch scramjet to leave carry over room for other 16-inch projectiles or the JSF VSM. In addition, the scramjet projectiles, using a much simpler system, can most probably be fielded sooner (in 5 to 8 years) and at lower cost than can the more complex missiles with their separate engines. (They would certainly be far cheaper than Tomahawk cruise missiles.) Development of scramjet projectiles could, however, substantially advance Navy development of scramjet missiles that could be used throughout the fleet in all ships with VLS cells. (Note: Our 500 mile plus range and near Mach 6 speeds are, we believe, reasonable estimates of ultimate performance. The most conservative performance estimates were in a January 3, 2003 letter from Pratt & Whitney's Manger for Hypersonic Programs to USNFSA Executive Director Dr. William L. Stearman which stated: "Pratt & Whitney's initial analysis of a scramjet-powered 16-inch gun-launched projectile (Hyper Shell) indicates that a range of approximately 400nm [460 miles], a time to target of 9 minutes [Mach 5.3], and an impact velocity of 2800 feet per second is feasible." (Emphasis added)

    21st CENTURY BATTLESHIPS (BBG-21s): Threat to the Inefficient Aircraft Carrier Land Bombardment Racket

Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •