November 19, 201411 yr Expert: Navy Should Revise Outer Air Battle Concept (USNI News)I think I agree with him. As Harpoon will show you, if you're having to use your SM-2/-3/-6 to defend the battle group, you're already backpedaling. And you can't carry enough of them (or afford them).
November 21, 201411 yr Author I see some controversy about this on FacePalm. Link to the document: Commanding the Seas: A Plan to Reinvigorate U.S. Navy Surface Warfare (CSBA, pdf) I have a sneaking suspicion that its detractors have either not read the report, or are misinterpreting it.
November 21, 201411 yr Author Boiling down the report:The author is talking about the surface fleet only.A mix of 142 SM-3, SM-6 and ESSM (plus more offensive strike weapons) is better thana mix of 104 SM-2, SM-3, SM-6 and ESSM (plus less offensive strike weapons).And it doesn't mean that aircraft cannot continue to shoot down archers in the outer air battle just as they did before. Of course they should.
November 21, 201411 yr Author More commentary, probably better than the USNI article: 47 Seconds From Hell: A Challenge To Navy Doctrine (Breaking Defense)
November 22, 201411 yr More commentary, probably better than the USNI article: 47 Seconds From Hell: A Challenge To Navy Doctrine (Breaking Defense) Great article, much clearer than the original!
Create an account or sign in to comment