Remember how it all began …
… When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary
for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal
station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them …
We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are
instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these
ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety
and Happiness. ...
Happy Treason Day! Screw You King George!!!
ReplyDeleteIf it wasn't the American Revolution, the British Empire would still rule most of the world. This blog would be arguing that 18in guns should equip the new battle cruiser HMS Benedict Arnold.
DeleteYou might do a post on these two big developments as the US Army just destroyed the US Marine Corps:
ReplyDelete1. An Army watercraft company with 13 ships will be based in Japan.
https://www.stripes.com/branches/army/2023-07-03/army-watercraft-unit-japan-flynn-10625126.html
While the Marine Corps dithers on a vague plan to spend billions on new LAW ships, the Army already has them. So there is no need for these new ships, the Army can do that mission soon in the Pacific, whatever that mission is...
2. Checkmate! The Army has developed a mobile missile system to fire Navy Tomahawk missiles with a 1000 mile range, while the Marines screw around with their smaller system with a 100 mile range limited to anti-ship missiles.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/army-fires-tomahawk-missile-from-its-new-typhon-battery-in-major-milestone
So the Army's got the China war already covered. The Marines can stick with embassy duty and 8th&I parades.
Uncle Sams Misguided Children were always the Navy’s army
DeleteI wonder if some of the new landing craft being built just down the road here in Vancouver (WA, NOT Canada, lol) will be part of that too.....
DeleteWhile we know the whole Marine EABO/LAW idea is absurd, does the Army plan on invading China??? What's the CONOP for those Army units??? Not sure I see the point...
DeleteAnnnnnd....third point/questions... So the Army can fire TLAM from mobile launcher. But HOW mobile is it?? Where will it be, and where will it move to?? Since itll be land based, is it more mobile (and potentially hidden) than a warship?? Isn't that an unnecessary duplication of capability?? It sounds to me like budgetary and capability one-upmanship, trying to gain funding and relevance while the Marines flounder, when all the services should be leaving missile strike and antiship missions to the Navy. Jeez, you cant make this **** up.....
Delete"The Army has developed a mobile missile system to fire Navy Tomahawk missiles with a 1000 mile range"
DeleteThis is true only in a technical sense of the words. It is functionally worthless and immobile. I'll explain.
It is mobile only in the technical sense that it can be moved with great effort and only over well developed road systems. The system is HUGE. It is not mobile in any tactically relevant sense.
It does not have a thousand mile range except in a technical sense that the missile can fly a thousand miles. It does NOT, however, have any organic ability to target anything a thousand miles away nor does the military possess any survivable capability to conduct thousand mile targeting with external assets that could link back to the Army unit.
The firepower of a Typhoon unit consists of four launchers each capable of launching four missiles for a total salvo of 16 missiles. That's a useless capability against a defended target. To give some perspective, we launched some 70+ missiles against a small undefended Syrian air base some time ago and that was only a partial attack intended to send a message. Against a peer-defended target, 16 missiles would have almost zero chance of surviving to inflict any damage. Tomahawks are slow, non-stealthy, and obsolete. This is a combat-ineffective capability.
What base or territory do we have within a thousand miles of any Chinese target where we could establish a Typhoon unit? Other than Japan, which is a thorny issue, at best, I'm unaware of any place we could usefully establish such a unit.
Finally, we rightfully mock the Marines for their concept of using small, slow, non-stealthy transport ships to deliver their missile units into enemy territory but how does the Army think they'll transport much more massive missile units anywhere?
I can't see that the Army has accomplished anything combat-useful. This appears to be just a public relations stunt. Do you see it differently?
Delete"The firepower of a Typhoon unit consists of four launchers each capable of launching four missiles for a total salvo of 16 missiles. That's a useless capability against a defended target."
By itself, perhaps. But, these missiles could launched as part of a larger attack with missiles fired from Navy or Air Force platforms.
"But, these missiles could launched as part of a larger attack"
DeleteTheoretically, yes. But is it really worth the effort to coordinate launches across dozens of other units and platforms for one strike as opposed to, say, a single SSGN with 154 Tomahawk missiles?
That's an immense duplication of effort and capability for what gain?
SSGN's are nice to have, but they can't be everywhere they are needed. Many targets are time sensitive and you want as many options as possible.
DeleteThe April 2017 cruise missile strike against the Shayrat Air Base in Syria was launched by two ships, the USS Porter and USS Ross. The missile strike the following year against Syria, in conjunction with the Britain and France, involved Air Force B-1s launching JASSMs and three destroyers firing a combined 60 cruise missiles.
Firing missiles from different locations can complicate an enemy's defenses. Doing so from a single platform, like an SSGN, would limit the effective range of the missiles.
From what I've read, the Army is looking to field 4 to 5 Multi-Domain Task Forces, each with a battery of Tomahawks within it's Stategic Fires Battalion. Some will be deployed to Europe and others in the Pacific. Sixteen Tomahawks seems like a niche capability. Another battery or two would be better.
Provided they had enough missiles, the Army could go after softer targets like transportation nodes, power generation facilities, and the like.
In the end, if this can make an enemy's planning more difficult, that can only be a good thing.
Where would you see these Typhoon units being located that they'd be in range of useful targets in a war against China since we have no useful bases or territories in the Pacific outside of Japan?
Delete"SSGN's are nice to have, but they can't be everywhere they are needed."
DeleteWhy not? They can go anywhere. It's not practical to hit every available target on day one of a war. You prioritize and work down your target list. A single SSGN is the equivalent of ten Typhoon units.
Even a Virginia with VPM has 40 Tomahawks compared to the 16 in a Typhoon unit.
Typhoon seems more like a budget grab than a useful combat system.
The better solution is to build more SSGNs.
Of the Founding Fathers, John Dickerson's story is one of the more interesting ones. If you saw 1776, you know Dickinson didn't sign the Declaration of Independence as he favored reconciliation with England. But, after leaving the the Continental Congress, Dickinson, one of the wealthiest Founding Fathers, took up arms and fought against the British. Later, Dickinson represented Delaware as one of its delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787,
ReplyDelete