DARPA Works On New Anti-Ship Missile Comments

Transformers Age of Extinction cheats

Sun, 21 Sep 2014 04:59:30 +0000

Amazing! Its actually remarkable paragraph, I have got much clear idea on the topic of from this
paragraph.

Brad Davis

Sat, 23 Nov 2013 20:21:11 +0000

We must not be that worried.about the threat, if we were we would have developed supersonic cruise missiles during the Cold War when the Russians held the monopoly on them.

TonyC.

Tue, 19 Nov 2013 20:07:35 +0000

The idea of a ballistic missile hitiing a moving target is still far fetched. Ballistics are moving at hypersonic speeds on reentry, so they really aren't maneuverable. Their long range anti-ship missile is most likely to strike the land sites before they can launch. The objective with the Chinese ABM's is to hit stationary targets , like landing dock ships and land based depots.

superraptor

Mon, 18 Nov 2013 01:45:37 +0000

DARPA should team up with India and adopt a long range version of their Brahmos missile. would save billions compared to reinventing the wheel

Chuck

Mon, 18 Nov 2013 00:03:26 +0000

That would make sense. USNS Richard Matthiesen is painted similarly to the one in the pic. Some of the MSC tankers seem to carry that paint scheme.

Curt

Sat, 16 Nov 2013 19:49:50 +0000

Eric Ericsson would be grey. Given it has a white superstructure and black hull, obviously a US Controlled ship, and clearly some type of tanker, my guess would be one of MSC's T5 tankers. There are at least a couple in the Pacific that carry refined products to US bases.

blight_

Sat, 16 Nov 2013 03:33:05 +0000

http://www.public.navy.mil/surfor/ccsg5/Pages/Exe... The following units are among those participating. U.S. Navy: * Task Force 70 (CTF 70) * USS George Washington (CVN 73) * Carrier Air Wing 5 (CVW 5) * Destroyer Squadron 15 (CDS 15) * USS Cowpens (CG 63) * USS Mustin (DDG 89) * USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) * USS McCampbell (DDG 85) * USS Chafee (DDG-90) * USS Chung Hoon (DDG 93) * USNS Amelia Earhart (T-AKE-6) * USNS John Ericcson (T-AO-194) * Patrol Squadrons (VP) 5, 8, 40 and 69 * Air and test Evaluation Squadron (VX) 1 * Special Project Patrol Squadron (VPU) 2 * Fleet Air Reconnaissance Squadron (VQ) 1 * Electronic Attack Squadron (VAQ) 132 U.S. Air Force * 613 Air Operations Center (AOC) Det. * 90th Expeditionary Fighter Squadron (EFS) * 18th Aggressor Squadron (AS) * 506th and 909th Air Refueling Squadrons (ARS) * 551st Airborne Air Control Squadron (AACS) * 12th Reconnaissance Squadron (RS) * 527th Space Aggressor Squadron (SAS) * 25th Space Range Squadron (SRS) * 69th Expeditionary Bomber Squadron (EBS) U.S. Marine Corps * Marine Fighter Attack Squadron (VMFA(AW)) 225 * Marine Aerial Refueling Squadron (VMGR) 152 * Marine Air Control Squadron (MACS) 4 Guess the ship in the background firing might be one of the following: * USS Mustin (DDG 89) * USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62) * USS McCampbell (DDG 85) * USS Chafee (DDG-90) * USS Chung Hoon (DDG 93) And the ship in between the Cowpens and mystery destroyer might be the John Ericsson? Bridge has those wing structures to the port and starboard, the Earhart's superstructure is boxier and more compact.

Chuck

Sat, 16 Nov 2013 00:45:08 +0000

Valiant Shield was a big war game off Guam. Easy to imagine that if they needed some extra bunkering just for those few weeks, they would just contract with a civilian tanker, rather than put an additional Navy tanker into use for just a few weeks. We've got enough backup tankers to maintain that kind of tempo if there is a real war, but no need to change the peacetime stationing of tankers just for a short exercise.

Stan

Fri, 15 Nov 2013 20:27:31 +0000

I would be more impressed if they started working on a support ship-mounted long range directed energy weapon which could reach out far enough to get those missiles in boost phase. That would do a pretty good job of neutralizing this particular threat. I doubt the Chinese would dare to put a conventional warhead on a longer range missile. Also, that laser could be used to take out sats guiding the missile and would make the idea of attacking a battlegroup from the air a bit obsolete.

Lance

Fri, 15 Nov 2013 18:23:13 +0000

Ye ah the author put the wrong pic in place thought they were going to scrap the Harpoon which would be a mistake for air assists like F-18s. Overall think people are too panicked over China and want to use China to get unlimited spending back which is a real waste of money. Id prefer Dg-1000 New fleet defender fighter and new subs way over this, for sea warfare.

TDMarine

Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:26:04 +0000

Good thing Clinton and Gore sold them the missile tech for campaign funds so the Chicoms could develop their weapons.

josh

Fri, 15 Nov 2013 15:05:29 +0000

Ok .. why havent we developed a anti ship missile more advanced than the harpoon ages ago?? It seems like we never look far ahead until a country like china gets a weapon that can outclass one of ours then it becomes a issue.

Big-B

Fri, 15 Nov 2013 09:40:51 +0000

Just to tell China the USA will go nuclear when fired upon by any ballistc missile is a thin protective shield. I think it is wise to to prepare for that China does not believe it. Back to topic it might be cheaper to buy off the shelf in Norway: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile But i guess thats not the american way ;-)

PolicyWonk

Fri, 15 Nov 2013 03:06:34 +0000

China’s development of the DF-21D ASBM (Anti-Ship Ballistic Missile), technically a cruise missile dubbed the “carrier killer,” has raised alarms on Capitol Hill. ======================================================== This is dumb. If the ChiComs built a true ASBM, we can resolve that problem easily, by simply informing them, that if a ballistic missile is launched, we have no way to determine if the warhead is nuclear or otherwise. Therefore, we will respond (i.e. launch) accordingly, assuming the worst case. Thats what the Russians told the US when GWB was POTUS, and the idea of "Global Strike" (conventional ICBM) was floated. That put the kibosh on that idea PDQ.

STemplar

Fri, 15 Nov 2013 01:04:35 +0000

Anyone read the Rand study on land based anti ship missiles? If the Army an the Marines were smart they would ditch some of their silly procurement notions an develop a land based mobile ant ship missile that is MLRS compatible.

blight_

Thu, 14 Nov 2013 22:34:38 +0000

Wonder if those SM missiles will do the job against a BM coming in from above at terminal velocity? Fire a ripple and hope for the best?

Steve B.

Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:55:10 +0000

That's a Harpoon in the photo. As well, the DF-21D is emphatically not a "cruise" missile, but is a derivative of the DF21 ballistic missile, used by China.

RRGED

Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:51:50 +0000

There is a naval ship just behind what appears to be a tanker firing as we'll.

Big-Dean

Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:43:25 +0000

that could be a USNS ship, but I can't tell what type or class

Preston VT

Thu, 14 Nov 2013 21:14:59 +0000

Anyone know the context of the stock photo included in the posting? There appears to be a civilian tanker in the background, behind which is another ship also firing a missile. Would the two Navy vessels really be test firing missiles with a civilian tanker so close and between them? It's possible the tanker is actually a Navy support vessel (oiler, etc.), but as best as I can tell it appears to be white, not grey. Just wondering...