.

Obama to kill Navy?s Tomahawk, Hellfire missiles

serfserf Member Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭
edited May 2014 in Politics
Is there any replacement missle and/or system to safe guard our fleet?Like a rail gun system or laser weapons?

Any expert navy personnel out here on GunBroker?

serf

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/25/obama-kill-navys-tomahawk-hellfire-missile-program/?utm_source=RSS_Feed&utm_medium=RSS

The proposed elimination of these missile programs came as a shock to lawmakers and military experts, who warned ending cutting these missiles would significantly erode America's ability to deter enemy forces.

Comments

  • bpostbpost Member Posts: 31,002 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    We don't need them, they are middle-age level technology. If we bring our troops home and mind our own business we could eliminate many weapon systems and sleep safer at night doing so..
  • CameroonCameroon Member Posts: 702 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don't these funds have to be voted on by Congress? Where's
    the outrage from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
  • us55840us55840 Member Posts: 31,320 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Cameroon
    Don't these funds have to be voted on by Congress? Where's
    the outrage from the Joint Chiefs of Staff?



    Following orders from the Commander in Chief. [}:)]
    "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." Abraham Lincoln
  • CameroonCameroon Member Posts: 702 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Guess they're more worried about a pension than the well
    being of their country.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,848 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The Tomahawk is a ground attack cruise missile, offensive in nature and not a fleet defense weapon.

    The Hellfire likewise is a laser guided ground attack weapon, through there is no reason it could not be targeted on a surface vessel. Again, not a fleet defense weapon, but a weapon that has been used extensively an successfully in the anti-armor role during actual war, and against suspected bad guys via drone attacks in our terror war on terror.

    The reduction in these two weapons systems will do nothing to reduce the ability of a carrier task force to protect itself. It will, however, limit our ability to remote-control kill people we have never seen.
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • blogdog37blogdog37 Member Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    The Tomahawk is a ground attack cruise missile, offensive in nature and not a fleet defense weapon.

    The Hellfire likewise is a laser guided ground attack weapon, through there is no reason it could not be targeted on a surface vessel. Again, not a fleet defense weapon, but a weapon that has been used extensively an successfully in the anti-armor role during actual war, and against suspected bad guys via drone attacks in our terror war on terror.

    The reduction in these two weapons systems will do nothing to reduce the ability of a carrier task force to protect itself. It will, however, limit our ability to remote-control kill people we have never seen.


    My step son is a former District of Columbia Attorney General who was in charge of 600 attorneys, fired by his class mate from Harvard Law Obama in 2012, know he's VP for a defensive missile company, I do not get any info from him, he is very closed mouthed, the most info I get on missiles is from this forum.
  • Don McManusDon McManus Member Posts: 21,848 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    quote:Originally posted by blogdog37
    quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
    The Tomahawk is a ground attack cruise missile, offensive in nature and not a fleet defense weapon.

    The Hellfire likewise is a laser guided ground attack weapon, through there is no reason it could not be targeted on a surface vessel. Again, not a fleet defense weapon, but a weapon that has been used extensively an successfully in the anti-armor role during actual war, and against suspected bad guys via drone attacks in our terror war on terror.

    The reduction in these two weapons systems will do nothing to reduce the ability of a carrier task force to protect itself. It will, however, limit our ability to remote-control kill people we have never seen.


    My step son is a former District of Columbia Attorney General who was in charge of 600 attorneys, fired by his class mate from Harvard Law Obama in 2012, know he's VP for a defensive missile company, I do not get any info from him, he is very closed mouthed, the most info I get on missiles is from this forum.


    My information is from when I was in the Nave 30+ years ago, reading Jane's up to about 10 years ago, and following various defense related stories as they pop up.

    In other words, not a hell of a lot better informed than are you.[:)]
    Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.

    Brad Steele
  • blogdog37blogdog37 Member Posts: 372 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Don't be modest Don your a plenty smart knowledgeable guy.
  • llama girlllama girl Member Posts: 605 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Here's another one for you. The obidiot wants to cancel the A-10 that was just upgraded to a C model. The upgrades include all the things they needed for the first gulf war, also it's the only plane the Russian armor is afraid of.
  • gary wraygary wray Member Posts: 4,663
    edited November -1
    I have written several times on GB Dis Forum over the last couple of years about the rail gun being developed at Dahlgren NWS and will be operational soon. It is public knowledge and I have personally seen it in the nondescript metal shed at Dahlgren on the firing line. The rail gun doesn't look like much (8000'ft per second/open breech) but man I have never seen so much electric being generated in one room to power it! They make the sabots it fires in the same bldg...with a range of up to 200 miles! I think the laser weapons are a bit of time away but the rail gun technology is on us now. Getting rid of these weapons, along with the A10 retirement is silliness IMO. I would work out some deal with Ukraine to sell them some of the Warthogs if we don't want them, and let Putin and his tank force think about 100 or so in the east. But with our weak, talk it to death leadership, will never happen.
  • Waco WaltzWaco Waltz Member Posts: 10,821
    edited November -1
    Maybe Obamy wants to cancel just enough weapons programs so that our military won't stand a chance if the Nation is invaded.
  • DaveJDaveJ Member Posts: 395 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Maybe it's so they have to be replaced by other systems that will show a tidy profit for the defense contractors.
  • bigoutsidebigoutside Member Posts: 19,443
    edited November -1
    They are both ancient technologies.

    Put a neutron warhead on a tomahawk, and you've got a show stopper.
    But a conventional warhead isn't impressive in this day and age. Too slow, and frankly they are susceptible to ground fire.

    Bigger bang for the buck with an Air Force delivered JDAM.

    And for a soviet tank commander, there are far scarier things in our inventory than an a10. Except the a10 will make you sweat while they poke holes in you. And the newer stuff makes holes before you know they are there.

    I love the a10 platform. But it, like the tomahawk and hellfire (1982) are old technology.
Sign In or Register to comment.