Maybe we should write an article for USNI?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Need SWO Input For Military Fiction Research
- Thread starter Scott M
- Start date
Maybe we should write an article for USNI?
What is being discussed would be a significant, massive shakeup to one or more officer communities.
So how we change it is less of a relevant discussion than to prove that it is broken in the first place.
Until Flag officers who succeeded under the "old system" are convinced that it is no longer viable, nothing will change.
That is a much tougher argument to make, even with incidents like FTZ or JSM.
Short of losing a war, I don't see anything else that will provide impetus for a quick turn.
Here's a timely article about the latest version of the Tomahawk missile. It's a bit clickbaity but there is also some decent discussion in there about jamming, countermeasures, speed and range, and some differences with contemporary missiles- all unclassified of course. If you're writing a military thriller novel then this kind of nerdy stuff usually makes those kinds of books more enjoyable- with or without a sci-fi aspect and suspension of belief/poetic license, all of which is your prerogative as the author.
www.defensenews.com
The Tomahawk anti ship missile (TASM) took a hiatus after the Cold War wound down but in the 1980s it added a lot of punch to the cruisers and the then-new Burke destroyers. Tomahawks went in the then-new VLS (basic layout is 8×8 tubes, minus three tubes to hold hardware, for 61 missiles per VLS, mix of Tomahawks, Standard SAMs, and ASROCs); Harpoons only come in a dedicated box launcher (four at a time in 2×2 layout, load out was often only 8 missiles per ship). If I remember right, GCCS-M (pronounced "geeks em") grew out of the tracking and targeting system for TASM. Funny how sometimes certain artifacts of outdated systems survive and thrive for generations.
When I say pack a punch and surface combatants, the Russian cruisers as well as their higher-end destroyers could carry a lot of anti ship missiles, typically much bigger and faster missiles than U.S. and western warships. (As for whether those would be more reliable, accurate, or effective, that's a good debate in itself.)
SWOdaddies please jump in and correct me on any of this.
The US Navy has an upgraded Tomahawk: Hereâs 5 things you should know
Here's what you need to know about the Navy's new Block V Tomahawk.
www.defensenews.com
The Tomahawk anti ship missile (TASM) took a hiatus after the Cold War wound down but in the 1980s it added a lot of punch to the cruisers and the then-new Burke destroyers. Tomahawks went in the then-new VLS (basic layout is 8×8 tubes, minus three tubes to hold hardware, for 61 missiles per VLS, mix of Tomahawks, Standard SAMs, and ASROCs); Harpoons only come in a dedicated box launcher (four at a time in 2×2 layout, load out was often only 8 missiles per ship). If I remember right, GCCS-M (pronounced "geeks em") grew out of the tracking and targeting system for TASM. Funny how sometimes certain artifacts of outdated systems survive and thrive for generations.
When I say pack a punch and surface combatants, the Russian cruisers as well as their higher-end destroyers could carry a lot of anti ship missiles, typically much bigger and faster missiles than U.S. and western warships. (As for whether those would be more reliable, accurate, or effective, that's a good debate in itself.)
SWOdaddies please jump in and correct me on any of this.