- Joined
- Jan 25, 2010
- Messages
- 30,790
- Reaction score
- 15,089
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Wow, so many faults.
Once again, these are not anti-ship missiles. These are land attack missiles, even if conventional and not nuclear. These can not attack ships, they attack fixed land positions.
Secondly, "thousands"? OMG, not even close!
At most, the US had less than 200 of these even at the height of the Cold War. Now even though these were Air Force equipment, I will be using conventional Army nomenclature. Battalion instead of Squadron, Battery instead of Flight.
Now a GLCM Battalion was composed of 12 launchers, each launcher had 4 missiles. That means an entire Battalion of these is equipped with 48 missiles. At the height of their deployment during the Cold War, we only had 10 Battalions in operation. So for your hypothetical "Thousands", we would be talking about more than 4 times that number just on Guam alone.
Got an idea yet how absolutely insane that idea is?
So you want to put thousands of these things on Guam, in order to have a lot of missiles, that are unable to attack ships coming to attack the island.
No, this would not be the equivalent of "10 Burke Destroyers". Because many of those missiles will actually be the UGM-109B TASM missiles, which actually can attack ships. Using land attack missiles would be absolutely insane and pointless in attacking ships. Might as well try to shoot fish from 100 meters away with a shotgun.
And they can not fire "all at once". The Battalion could fire all 48 of their missiles, then they would be going down for a reload cycle. And unless they go insanely high in this capability, that means they are going to be down around 8 hours as they reload all of their missiles. It takes about 1-2 hours per launcher to complete a full reload of 4 missiles. So including time to go to and from the ammo depot to get more missiles, this 8 hours is actually more like 10+ hours. Then and only then can they fire another 48 missiles. And do you think the enemy is going to just be sitting back waiting to get pounded again?
As opposed to your fantasy, we would actually be much better off deploying a permanent solution, like basing something like AEGIS Ashore there rather than this insane fantasy. That system actually can in theory be equipped with any Standard Missile of the US Navy. Including the UGM-109B TASM Anti-Ship missile.
Please, oh please go and do some research about the Tomahawk series of missiles, their capabilities, and what they can do. And I do mean series. The GLCM, the ALCM, the SLCM, and the SSLCM. Each of these are very different, and are not even close to each other even though they are part of the same family. You can not just interchange them whenever you want.
In fact, far better would be to just acquire more of the AGM-84L air launched HARPOON missiles. This would be far cheaper than this insanity, and Guam already has a large air base.
The US fired 802 tomahawk cruise missiles in the Iraq war in 2002. I expect against land based targets. Conventional cruise missiles based on land in East Asia would provide a significant force from which an attack could be made on an advanced opponent. Destruction of military assets along the coast of that country would increase the safe operating zone for US naval and air assets. It could potentially destroy the opponents mid range missiles which number at least 1500.
Note my original quote regarding numbers
Base a few hundred in Guam as a standoff weapon that is always in the region not on a destroyer that was called away. Another few hundred in South Korea and another few hundred in Japan
Now you have a couple thousand cruise missiles + those in destroyers and subs without the billion dollar cost of the ship ( x 16)