• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

Army Indirect Fire Protection System and New Guided Missile Program

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
66
Northrop pitch for their command/control interface for forward air defense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jLumEl0rEIY
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://insidedefense.com/insider/esper-long-range-precision-fires-will-serve-joint-purpose

ong-range precision fires are the Army's No. 1 modernization priority not only because they will provide a critical capability but also because they can be used to benefit the joint force, according to service Secretary Mark Esper.

"We think that for a number of reasons, we need to make sure we have overmatch in indirect fires, not least for a ground campaign, but also we need to have the ability to support our sister services," Esper said during a June 5 talk at the Brookings Institution.

Relating to Multi-Domain Operations, LRPF could be used to help the other services gain entry to a certain theater in a future fight. For instance, the Army could support the Air Force by suppressing enemy air defenses, or the Navy by shooting "multihundred-mile range" rockets or artillery from a coastline, he said.

The Army intends to spend nearly $1.6 billion from fiscal year 2020 to FY-24 in support of LRPF efforts, according to a comprehensive modernization strategy submitted to Congress and obtained last month by Inside Defense.
https://missilethreat.csis.org/the-forthcoming-missile-defense-review/

Later this spring, the Trump administration will release its 2018 Missile Defense Review (MDR), which is expected to better align U.S. missile defense policy with the present security environment. President Barack Obama’s 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR) reflected the security environment of the time and the aspirations of the Obama administration. In particular, technological advances by U.S. adversaries and a renewed focus on long-term competition with Russia and China drive the need for a new review.
New Era, New Policy

The new MDR will need to address at least two major trends that have emerged over the past several years: the significant advances made by U.S. adversaries in nuclear and missile technology, and the shift to a more competitive footing with near-peer states like Russia and China as noted in the Trump administration’s National Defense Strategy.

The qualitative progress that U.S. adversaries have made in missile and nuclear development has been considerable. In just the last two years, North Korea has tested six new ballistic missile variants, including two versions of an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) capable of reaching U.S. territory. It has also made unexpected progress toward a solid-fuel submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) and has tested new, more advanced antiship missiles and air defenses.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/06/sasc-ndaa-would-add-500m-for-cruise-missile-defense/

An American Achilles’ Heel

While the US military has invested massively in defense against ballistic missiles — such as GBI, THAAD, and Patriot — it’s largely neglected cruise missiles, which fly completely different flight paths and present a different kind of target. ICBMs, Scuds, and similar launch on a plume of hot exhaust visible from space and then fly a completely predictable ballistic path — hence the name — so they’re (relatively) easy to spot. But they fly so fast and high they’re hard to hit, requiring highly specialized high-performance interceptors.
 

marauder2048

"I should really just relax"
Joined
Nov 19, 2013
Messages
2,325
Reaction score
69
LOCKHEED MARTIN'S MINIATURE HIT-TO-KILL INTERCEPTOR MATURES TO DEVELOPMENT STAGE

PARIS, June 13, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- The U.S. Army Cruise Missile Defense Systems Project
Office awarded Lockheed Martin a $2.6 million dollar contract to mature the Miniature Hit-to-Kill
(MHTK) interceptor, evaluate its effectiveness and demonstrate manufacturing readiness as part
of the Extended Mission Area Missile Program. Announced by the company at the Eurosatory
exhibition, this award marks the MHTK's transition from the Science and Technology (S&T) phase to
the Development phase.

"This award brings us one step closer to addressing a top battlefield priority – having an effective
and cost-efficient solution to defeat rockets, artillery, mortars and other airborne targets,"
said Hal Stuart, Force Protection program manager at Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control.

Previous S&T contracts with the U.S. Army, together with Lockheed Martin investment, helped
mature the MHTK missile from basic research to a concept demonstration with two configurations
– a semi-active radio frequency seeker and an active radio frequency seeker. MHTK has
conducted a dozen flight tests with a combination of investment and contract funds.
The most recent controlled flight test in January at White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico,
demonstrated the interceptor's increased agility and validated performance of the airframe
and electronics, which are now common between MHTK's two configurations to drive affordability.

The MHTK missile is designed to defeat rocket, artillery and mortar targets through body-to-body
contact without a warhead at ranges projected to exceed those of current and interim systems. The
missile is just under two and a half feet (76 cm) in length, an inch and a half (4 cm) in diameter and
weighs about five pounds (2.2 kg) at launch. The compact size of MHTK allows multiple rounds to
be packaged in a very small footprint to effectively combat complex threat situations like saturation
attacks. The MHTK interceptor complements the Lockheed Martin family of Hit-to-Kill missile
interceptors by delivering close range lethality with proven success for truly layered defense.

https://news.lockheedmartin.com/2018-06-13-Lockheed-Martins-Miniature-Hit-to-Kill-Interceptor-Matures-to-Development-Stage#assets_all
 

Attachments

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/14/nammo-rolls-out-its-extreme-range-artillery/

PARIS — Norwegian ammunition company Nammo has rolled out what it’s calling an “extreme range” artillery concept using ramjet propulsion that it hopes will meet the emerging long-range precision fires requirements for a variety of countries, including the United States.

Nammo has combined its experience in both ammunition and rocket-propulsion technology, and it’s merging those capabilities to create an artillery shell capable of reaching more than 100 kilometers in range without changing the gun on a standard 155mm howitzer, according to Thomas Danbolt, company vice president of large caliber ammunition, who spoke at Eurosatory, one of the largest land warfare conferences in Europe.

The company displayed a model of the artillery shell at the exposition.

The development makes sense at a time where countries around the world are seeking farther standoff ranges for their fires capabilities as they contemplate having to penetrate territory that is built up to deny access by land, sea and air.

The U.S. Army, in fact, has made Long-Range Precision Fires its top modernization priority and is pursuing technology to extend cannon artillery. The service is also developing technology to get after extremely long ranges like hypersonics and ramjet technology.
 

fredymac

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
1,448
Reaction score
66

Attachments

TomS

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2008
Messages
3,208
Reaction score
125
News reports keep lowballing the Nammo round's range -- 100km is ballistic; with aerodynamic gliding, the company claims 150km. That's really not in the same ballpark as XM1113; these aren't alternative solutions to the same requirement.

https://youtu.be/6J0XwLYmAc0
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Now if a Electro Magnetic Thermal Chemical Gun technology were brought back (as it never should have been abandoned) were used to fire this or SCRAM shells (as they never should have been abandoned) then realistic Suppression of Air Defense (SEAD) can be accomplished from ships.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tR8TjNqi42Y

TC-GMLRS conducts successful test flight

"Hit M3.8 at burnout" Very nice now load these on a B-52 or a surface ship by the hundreds.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/eurosatory/2018/06/21/one-of-these-3-missiles-could-be-the-armys-next-interceptor-to-protect-against-indirect-fires/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DFN%20DNR%206/21/18&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Daily%20News%20Roundup

PARIS — The U.S. Army has awarded three $2.6 million contracts in the first phase of a program to find a second interceptor to defend against rockets, artillery, mortars, cruise missiles and drones.

Lockheed Martin was awarded one contract to mature its Miniature Hit-to-Kill (MHTK) missile out of the science and technology phase and into the development phase.

And Raytheon received two awards: one to qualify Sky Hunter — which is the U.S. version of Israeli company Rafael’s Tamir interceptor — and another based on the Accelerated Improved Interceptor Initiative (AI3).

The U.S. Army indicated in its fiscal year 2019 budget documents that it wanted a new surface-to-air missile to provide capability to counter RAM, cruise missile and drone threats and plans to hold a competition to procure it.

The missile the Army is calling the Expanded Mission Area Missile, or EMAM, will be the second interceptor qualified for the Indirect Fire Protection Capability Increment 2 program, or IFPC Inc. 2, which has been in development to counter RAM threats for years.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/06/28/us-armys-interim-short-range-air-defense-solution-crystallizes/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Socialflow

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Army’s interim short-range air defense system, which will urgently fill a capability gap identified a few years ago in the European theater, has crystallized.

The Army had already decided the Interim Maneuver-Short-Range Air Defense system would be developed around its Stryker combat vehicle, but it has now chosen Leonardo DRS to supply a mission equipment package that will include Raytheon’s Stinger vehicle missile launcher, according to Col. Chuck Worshim, program manager for cruise missile defense systems with the Army’s Program Executive Office Missiles and Space, who spoke to Defense News on June 28.

General Dynamics Land Systems — which produces the Stryker — will be the platform integrator for the IM-SHORAD system, he added.

The Army went through a selection process through the Department of Defense Ordnance Technology Consortium to determine the best collection of vendors to build prototypes.

A Boeing-GDLS team was a front-runner for an interim SHORAD mission package, unveiling before any other vendor a solution in August 2017 at the Space and Missile Defense Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
Seems like a good choice. Boeing's need to have Avengers supplied from government stocks was a problem, as was their need to more heavily modify the base vehicle. Going to be interesting to see how much the Army is able to take advantage of the mount's flexibility.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
288
Stinger. Again. Color me neither impressed nor surprised. ::) I guess making something actually useful would be too hard.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
It's a rapid-acquisition, interim system and the requirements specified Stinger. Question is what happens with the system going forward, does it receive a laser and//or new missiles down the line? And what will the NGCV version of manuever SHORAD look like?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
Moose said:
It's a rapid-acquisition, interim system and the requirements specified Stinger. Question is what happens with the system going forward, does it receive a laser and//or new missiles down the line? And what will the NGCV version of manuever SHORAD look like?
An NGCV w/ some version of the 75mm ARES autocannon able to handle everything from drones to ballistics missiles (ballistic msle def 75mm HV gun has been studied) would be start. :D
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
SDB II now called StormBreaker

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2018-07-16-Operational-testing-begins-on-StormBreaker?WT.mc_id=twitter_socialmedia_N/A&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=N/A&linkId=54443842

LONDON, July 16, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTN) StormBreaker™ bomb, formerly called the Small Diameter Bomb II, or SDB II™ bomb, has entered operational testing, a step closer to providing U.S. Air Force pilots the capability to strike maneuvering targets in adverse weather. Operational testing follows completion of a successful Operational Test Readiness Review in Spring 2018.

StormBreaker's tri-mode seeker gives pilots the ability to destroy moving targets on the battlefield in adverse weather.

The StormBreaker tri-mode seeker uses imaging infrared, millimeter wave and semi-active laser, giving pilots the ability to destroy moving targets on the battlefield in adverse weather from standoff ranges.

"StormBreaker has completed a rigorous set of testing," said Mike Jarrett, Raytheon Air Warfare Systems vice president. "With its tri-mode seeker and datalink, StormBreaker will transform the battlespace by rendering adverse weather irrelevant."

Operational test flights are slated to begin in Summer 2018. StormBreaker will be fielded first on the F-15E Strike Eagle, and is planned to be integrated onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by 2022.
 

Moose

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2010
Messages
1,023
Reaction score
37
bobbymike said:
SDB II now called StormBreaker

http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/2018-07-16-Operational-testing-begins-on-StormBreaker?WT.mc_id=twitter_socialmedia_N/A&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=N/A&linkId=54443842

LONDON, July 16, 2018 /PRNewswire/ -- Raytheon Company's (NYSE: RTN) StormBreaker™ bomb, formerly called the Small Diameter Bomb II, or SDB II™ bomb, has entered operational testing, a step closer to providing U.S. Air Force pilots the capability to strike maneuvering targets in adverse weather. Operational testing follows completion of a successful Operational Test Readiness Review in Spring 2018.

StormBreaker's tri-mode seeker gives pilots the ability to destroy moving targets on the battlefield in adverse weather.

The StormBreaker tri-mode seeker uses imaging infrared, millimeter wave and semi-active laser, giving pilots the ability to destroy moving targets on the battlefield in adverse weather from standoff ranges.

"StormBreaker has completed a rigorous set of testing," said Mike Jarrett, Raytheon Air Warfare Systems vice president. "With its tri-mode seeker and datalink, StormBreaker will transform the battlespace by rendering adverse weather irrelevant."

Operational test flights are slated to begin in Summer 2018. StormBreaker will be fielded first on the F-15E Strike Eagle, and is planned to be integrated onto the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter by 2022.
Did someone put Rumsfeld in charge of naming things again?
 

jsport

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Jul 27, 2011
Messages
1,289
Reaction score
29
marauder2048 said:
https://defpost.com/us-army-use-raytheon-coyote-expendable-uas-krfs-radar-near-term-counter-uas-mission/

Curious if they would consider the semi-active version of MHTK now that they have the illuminators.
Now understand the Army and Navy are buying that Coyote toy to suicide adversary drones. Political payoffs abound and abound. Any logical counter swarm is going to require a UAS which can impact and/or utilize multiple shots to diminish large swarms enough to be dealt w/ using point defense system. Each counter UAS will need to repeatedly attack swarm launch sites at maximum range as well. This Coyote strategy is dumb-a-fied to the extreme.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Defense Science Board Executive Summary of Classified Report (damn it :mad:)

Countering Anti-access Systems with Longer Range and Standoff Capabilities
(2017 Summer Study)–Executive Summary

https://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2010s/LRE%20Executive%20Summary__Final.pdf
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/07/27/the-us-armys-top-modernization-priority-is-in-jeopardy/

WASHINGTON — Both congressional authorizers and appropriators have made moves to cut funds for the U.S. Army’s top modernization priority — Long-Range Precision Fires — as the service looks to find ways to accelerate the development of a new precision strike missile as part of that effort.

The new Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM, is meant to replace the Army Tactical Missile System while providing increased standoff range that will be important in a fight against an adversary that is able to effectively deny access to territory.

The service made headway on the PrSM program in 2017, awarding Raytheon and Lockheed Martin a three-year period of performance to design and build missile prototypes in the technology-maturation and risk-reduction, or TMRR, phase.
How does your "number one" priority get cut? ???
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
Odd since the LRPF program was fully funded in the NDAA so far... unless it gets cut in the conference committee.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
288
bobbymike said:
https://www.defensenews.com/land/2018/07/27/the-us-armys-top-modernization-priority-is-in-jeopardy/

WASHINGTON — Both congressional authorizers and appropriators have made moves to cut funds for the U.S. Army’s top modernization priority — Long-Range Precision Fires — as the service looks to find ways to accelerate the development of a new precision strike missile as part of that effort.

The new Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM, is meant to replace the Army Tactical Missile System while providing increased standoff range that will be important in a fight against an adversary that is able to effectively deny access to territory.

The service made headway on the PrSM program in 2017, awarding Raytheon and Lockheed Martin a three-year period of performance to design and build missile prototypes in the technology-maturation and risk-reduction, or TMRR, phase.
How does your "number one" priority get cut? ???
Leave it to the politicians to snatch defeat from the jaws of success.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
288
Grey Havoc said:
Too true, I'm afraid.
To add insult to injury, this is an area where China already fields such weapons. The "Prompt Global Strike" capability that the US is supposedly pursuing is already in existence - in China. Granted, it's not "global" yet, but they continue to expand their ability to strike in minutes year-by-year. With the DF-26 they can hit anything within 2500 miles in a matter of minutes. The US doesn't remotely possess that capability. One can imagine the ensuing circus if Washington found out they needed to hit a target 700 miles outside the continental US right now.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
25
sferrin said:
Grey Havoc said:
Too true, I'm afraid.
To add insult to injury, this is an area where China already fields such weapons. The "Prompt Global Strike" capability that the US is supposedly pursuing is already in existence - in China. Granted, it's not "global" yet, but they continue to expand their ability to strike in minutes year-by-year. With the DF-26 they can hit anything within 2500 miles in a matter of minutes. The US doesn't remotely possess that capability. One can imagine the ensuing circus if Washington found out they needed to hit a target 700 miles outside the continental US right now.
Considering the dangers of making a mistake, I'm actually glad there is sufficient time to reconsider the strike option built into the system that presently exists in Washington. The idea of certain US Presidents lobbing missiles hither and yon WORT to the possible consequences worries me, immensely. Appears that perhaps some people need to watch some Cold War movies over (ie Dr. Strangelove, Fail Safe, The Day After, etc.). Of course, living outside the US focuses the mind on real world problems...
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
That is not the purpose of the system. It is to respond in a timely fashion to a request for fire rather than sending a jet into harm's way which costs MUCH more money.
 

Kadija_Man

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 26, 2011
Messages
1,924
Reaction score
25
SpudmanWP said:
That is not the purpose of the system. It is to respond in a timely fashion to a request for fire rather than sending a jet into harm's way which costs MUCH more money.
It may not be the intended consequence of the system's design but it is a benefit which has been derived from it. Tell me, do you like the idea of people lobbing missiles hither and yon with fully considering the consequences of doing so? I was rather alarmed to learn that President Reagan - some 38 years after the first Atomic bomb had been exploded - hadn't considered the consequences of nuclear war until he had viewed the movie, "The Day After" in 1983. Seems to me, the leaders of the fUSSR were much more switched on than the leaders of the USA. These people hold all our fates in their hands. I'd like some very, very, serious thinking going on before they press the button.
 

bobbymike

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Joined
Apr 21, 2009
Messages
8,781
Reaction score
146
Kadija_Man said:
SpudmanWP said:
That is not the purpose of the system. It is to respond in a timely fashion to a request for fire rather than sending a jet into harm's way which costs MUCH more money.
I was rather alarmed to learn that President Reagan - some 38 years after the first Atomic bomb had been exploded - hadn't considered the consequences of nuclear war until he had viewed the movie, "The Day After" in 1983.
Absolute pure unadulterated BS

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/president-reagans-legacy-and-us-nuclear-weapons-policy

Reagan as Nuclear Abolitionist

Reagan was born 95 years ago today in Tampico, a small town in Illinois. He absorbed from his mother's religious faith the belief that God has a plan for every­one; he thought that he had a mission to fulfill in life. During his teenage years, Reagan spent five years as a lifeguard on the Rock River in Dixon, Illinois. Life­saving left an indelible sense of purpose and satisfac­tion in the young man. Beginning with his adolescent experience as a lifeguard, Reagan harbored a funda­mental impulse to intervene in the course of events in order to rescue others from peril. In time, that impulse would fuse both with his belief that he had a mission to fulfill in life and with his abhorrence of nuclear weapons. From this confluence came Reagan the determined nuclear abolitionist and Reagan the father of the Strategic Defense Initiative.

Interestingly, Reagan's awakening interest in becoming an actor coincided with his seeing, and performing in, antiwar plays. While in Hollywood, Reagan was known to read and expound on current events. A liberal in terms of domestic politics, Reagan's views on foreign affairs were largely unformed-although by 1945 there was one aspect of world affairs on which his views had formed instantly and permanently: He loathed nuclear weapons. Immediately after the United States dropped two atomic bombs over Japan in 1945 to end World War II, Reagan became involved in anti-nuclear politics. He was an ardent proponent of the abolition of nuclear weapons and the international­ization of atomic energy. In December 1945, Reagan intended to help lead an anti-nuclear rally in Holly­wood. He planned to read an anti-nuclear poem at the rally, but Warner Brothers, the studio to which Reagan was contracted as a film actor, informed him that he could not participate, ostensibly because it would violate his performance contract, but almost certainly because the studio did not want that kind of political attention. So we were denied our first chance to see Reagan's anti-nuclearism in public.

Many views that Reagan held in the mid-1940s changed as he evolved from liberal Democrat to conservative Republican. But he never abandoned his hatred of nuclear weapons and his desire to eliminate them. Reagan's "dream," as he himself described it, was "a world free of nuclear weapons." He pursued that dream as a personal mission.

Reagan as Anti-Communist

Reagan's experiences in Hollywood in the after­math of World War II catalyzed his anti-Commu­nism. He joined liberal political groups through which he believed he could help shape domestic and international politics. What he found was that Communists and Communist sympathizers began to exercise increasing control over these groups. He was stung and appalled, and quickly became an anti-Communist.

Reagan served as president of the Screen Actors Guild during the late 1940s and early 1950s. He enjoyed the negotiations involved, and developed considerable self-confidence in his negotiating prowess. From then on, Reagan maintained that negotiations, when skillfully conducted and when backed by sufficient leverage, could produce signif­icant, positive results. It should be noted that Reagan never feared negotiating with the Soviets, as long as he was the one doing the negotiating.

From the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, Reagan traveled throughout the United States, speaking before countless civic and business associations on behalf of General Electric. Reagan's talks evolved into a single speech, which he wrote on his own and which set forth his political approach. His speech was premised upon the notion that the Soviet Union intended to expand Communism around the world. As a result of that expansionism, the United States found itself in a world struggle in which the Soviet Union sought the destruction of capitalism and freedom. Reagan chafed at the U.S. Cold War policy of containment. He thought it insufficient to protect American security and also immoral, as he believed it relegated individuals behind the Iron Curtain to what he called "slavery." Reagan called for a policy that would roll back Soviet control both from the Soviet sphere of influ­ence and within the Soviet Union itself.

As early as 1963, Reagan criticized what he described as "the liberal establishment of both par­ties" for asserting that a policy of accommodation was the only way to prevent a nuclear war. Reagan instead focused on what he saw as the economic and technological weakness of the USSR. He argued that the United States should pursue a vig­orous competition with the Soviet Union, includ­ing an arms race. If it did so, Reagan said, the Soviet Union would realize that it would be able neither to afford economically nor to keep up technologically with the United States. As a result, the Soviets would be willing to agree to deep reductions in nuclear weapons-ultimately to zero, Reagan intended-but also would be compelled to "modify their stand" in a broader sense. He implied that this would include a realization that the USSR could not win the Cold War, that the Soviets would see aspects of the Western "way of life" as attractive, and that they would begin to change the funda­mental nature of their system. (It should be noted, however, that Reagan did not claim that if subject­ed to an arms race, the Soviet Union would bank­rupt itself and fall apart. His own views were much more nuanced.) In Reagan's mind, destroying nuclear weapons and winning the Cold War were closely tied together.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/100378/ronald-reagan-and-his-quest-to-abolish-nuclear-weapons-by-paul-lettow/9780812973266/excerpt
 

SpudmanWP

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,076
Reaction score
20
Kadija_Man said:
It may not be the intended consequence of the system's design but it is a benefit which has been derived from it. Tell me, do you like the idea of people lobbing missiles hither and yon with fully considering the consequences of doing so?
Collateral damage is a primary concern when it comes to warfare, at least in the eyes of the US. We have spent a lot of money, time, and most importantly, blood developing and implementing smaller & more precise weapons in order to mitigate collateral damage.

Not only did we pioneer modern PGMs, but we are also pushing them smaller and less lethal (ie SDB FLM variant) along with non-lethal weapons in general. The idea that a typical FO would call for or that an officer would sign off on indiscriminate bombing/shelling without any concern for collateral damage is absurd.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
288
SpudmanWP said:
That is not the purpose of the system. It is to respond in a timely fashion to a request for fire rather than sending a jet into harm's way which costs MUCH more money.
And takes a lot more time.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
288
SpudmanWP said:
Kadija_Man said:
It may not be the intended consequence of the system's design but it is a benefit which has been derived from it. Tell me, do you like the idea of people lobbing missiles hither and yon with fully considering the consequences of doing so?
Collateral damage is a primary concern when it comes to warfare, at least in the eyes of the US. We have spent a lot of money, time, and most importantly, blood developing and implementing smaller & more precise weapons in order to mitigate collateral damage.

Not only did we pioneer modern PGMs, but we are also pushing them smaller and less lethal (ie SDB FLM variant) along with non-lethal weapons in general. The idea that a typical FO would call for or that an officer would sign off on indiscriminate bombing/shelling without any concern for collateral damage is absurd.
Yep. There's video on youtube where there was a Bradley and M1 taking shots at a building where some insurgents were holed up. Their effectiveness was dubious but it did keep the other guys pinned down. Then the MLRS Unitary hit the building and that was that. What we're talking about here is the same kind of thing but on a larger scale. (And these don't necessarily have nukes.)
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
11,949
Reaction score
288
Kadija_Man said:
Tell me, do you like the idea of people lobbing missiles hither and yon with fully considering the consequences of doing so?
Do you like the idea of an adversary being able to hit you within minutes of deciding to do so and not being able to respond in kind?
 
Top