3
3
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 3
Interesting read. I am not necessarily opposed to the idea, but the article didn't address what capability gap this would address. Before a new system is developed and procured, an analysis is done to see if said capability already exists. Then they look at non materiel solutions such as training or doctrine changes to address that gap. Only after an exhaustive analysis is a new system developed.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SGT David T. I think he tried, but flailed. He scratched the purpose of putting a heavy hitter in the carrier group - heavier hitting than a destroyer. I don't know that there is really a need at this time as most every opponent will be utilizing destroyers, subs, and carriers. I don't know that there's really anyone out there still using battleships, is there?
(0)
(0)
Fascinating. I hope that America's military planners are looking into the future and not stuck in the past as were their predecessors, the ones who clung to battleships when air power was first developing. We no longer have the industrial base to pump out new designs during the middle of a war as we did in WWII.
(1)
(0)
SSgt (Join to see)
SSG Pete Fleming I think the Air Force is shooting for that in the future. Need to get NASA back to doing space stuff, first, though...lol
(1)
(0)
Read This Next