Author Topic: Using the Army to sink ships?  (Read 4506 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 93,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Using the Army to sink ships?
« on: February 23, 2017, 15:42:44 »
The US is looking at tasking the US army with ship sinking (aka Coastal defense artillery) If Canada wanted to contribute to a mission without being in the frontline, it might be a task that would fit the political mindset of the current government? The equipment could be owned by the US  and operated by Canadians similar to the Honest John batteries.  https://sofrep.com/75573/pacom-commanders-wants-army-start-sinking-ships-thats-just-beginning/

Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 195,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,245
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #1 on: February 23, 2017, 15:51:44 »
I would like to know what motivated the admiral to come up with what on first blush seems hare-brained. It would be within the capability of technology, but what is the threat?

And we owned our Honest John launchers, handling and transport equipment along with the rockets. The warheads were under US control, although I am pretty sure we had purchased a certain number of a certain yield.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,380
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #2 on: February 23, 2017, 16:27:25 »
I would like to know what motivated the admiral to come up with what on first blush seems hare-brained. It would be within the capability of technology, but what is the threat?

...

I'm inclined to think of places like Baltic, the Black Sea and the South China Seas and the associated choke points.

These days common launchers with common missiles and multi-function seekers means that a lot more can be expected, in my opinion, out of a missile unit.

I used to wonder about conflating GBAD with LRPRs.   But then I looked at Her Majesty's Canadian Ships.  Which also use missiles to sink ships.  Just like the Air Force can use missiles to blow up things that fly, float and crawl.  Only they can move them from the warehouse to the target faster.

Maybe the RRCA wants to reconsider the Stone Frigate concept?

Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,380
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #3 on: February 23, 2017, 16:54:41 »
I believe this article in the Telegraph could be arguably related:  The Fallon Doctrine -

Quote
It is possible that the age of migrant interventionism is just beginning

We need to know more about the ‘Fallon doctrine’ 
RT HOWARD
23 FEBRUARY 2017 • 10:47AM

It is  time to have an open debate about the scope of a new guiding force of our foreign policy – ‘the Fallon doctrine’.

Liberal interventionism died on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya, as Western governments belatedly acknowledged that they lacked the resources, and any justification, to impose their own values elsewhere.

But a different doctrine is now fast emerging: migrant interventionism. It is in our own interest, runs the argument, to militarily intervene elsewhere in the world to forestall a migrant exodus.
 
A refugee rescue boat leaves the Greek island of Lebos. As a gateway into Europe, Greece has been at the coalface of the migrant crisis. CREDIT: DIMITRIS LEGAKIS/ATHENA PICTURES
The emergence of migrant interventionism became clear at last week’s Munich Security Conference when the Defence Secretary, Sir Michael Fallon, justified the ongoing, if limited, British presence in Afghanistan on the grounds that the collapse of the country would lead to a massive refugee crisis. "We here will feel the consequences, very directly", he claimed. "There could be three to four million young Afghan men sent out by their villages to migrate westwards, and they are heading here".

This is the first time that a British, indeed Western, government minister has argued that British lives should be risked abroad to defend our shores from the export of refugees rather than insurgents and narcotics. It amounts to a new definition of self-defence.

Despite concerted efforts to dam the inflow, the underlying causes of the crisis – unchecked population growth, war and corruption – remain unresolved
This may have been an implicit consideration in other conflicts, notably the Bosnian civil war. But the ‘Fallon Doctrine’ still marks something of a turning point because it appears to justify, openly and unabashedly, our presence in Afghanistan purely on those grounds.   

The advent of migrant intervention should be welcomed as a proactive and imaginative way of tackling the refugee crisis, which is not likely to diminish any time soon.

Last year around 1 million refugees and migrants arrived in Europe, and despite concerted efforts to dam the inflow, the underlying causes of the crisis – unchecked population growth, war and corruption – remain unresolved and, in some Western circles, barely even discussed. In other words, we have little choice but to consider options as drastic as migrant interventionism.

Sir Michael did not specifically say that we, or anyone, should involve ourselves in any foreign country just to prevent a refugee crisis. He argued, instead, that "if it was right to go in, it has to be right not to leave before the job is done as well as we can do it". But no matter what the circumstances, if British lives are to be put in danger, and our material resources potentially squandered, we need to at least ask some pressing questions.

Assuming that a particular country is a likely source of refugees, one obvious starting point is to ask if there are any alternative options that are less drastic than a full military deployment. In Afghanistan, for example, there have been times – notably the 1990s – when Western governments could have sponsored several anti-Taliban proxies.

If there are such proxies available, can they be sponsored without boots on the ground ? And if this really is necessary, can advisers rather than frontline soldiers be deployed?

In May last year, the then foreign secretary, Philip Hammond, took this more measured approach when he announced a £40 million subsidy to the Nigerian government to support its war against Boko Haram, mainly by providing Nigerian soldiers with specialist training. Such an initiative, undertaken with an efficiency and expertise that the forces of the African Union wholly lack, could eventually help curb the rapidly growing number of refugees who are fleeing Nigeria.

If soldiers are deployed, then we also need to ask if their geographic role can be limited. A military deployment could establish internationally controlled ‘safe areas’ of particular strategic or economic importance that would provide local populations with economic opportunities. Nothing more ambitious is necessarily required.

Fourthly, can our armed forces limit their structural role to enforcing law and order over specific areas and regions? Nothing remotely as grandiose as the old-style nation-building which fell into disrepute in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya is required. France’s armed forces have recently played a limited role in Mali, for example, undertaking anti-insurgent operations with great success.

Finally, does the British government have any potential allies that would assist us? Perhaps in the years ahead China, the EU states and, despite its isolationist rhetoric, the US  could work together with us to pursue a shared policy of migration interventionism in sub-Saharan Africa.

It is possible that the age of migrant interventionism is just beginning and is set to grow, marching ahead in direct proportion to the massive inflows of people into the Western world. There is no time to be lost in addressing the dangers, as well as acknowledging the opportunities, it brings.

RT Howard is the author of 'What's Wrong with Liberal Interventionism' (SAU) and 'Power and Glory: France's Secret Wars with Britain and America 1945-2016'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/23/need-know-fallon-doctrine/

This is related to the much bally-hooed Responsibility To Protect doctrine - but on a more limited scale.

It is also related to the historical impulse that saw Britain establish the Regiment of Tangiers and the French invade Algeria: self-interested actions designed to control lawless regions whose inhabitants were disturbing the peace in England and France by taking slaves.

The Fallon Doctrine (or variant) seems to consist of the following:

Migrants are a problem
Migrants leave because they are pushed as much as they are pulled
Reduce the push and you reduce the Migrants.

It is in enlightened self-interest to act to reduce the push.

To reduce the push do the following:

Find a local to support who will help to make the homeland more attractive
If the local is willing but not able then supply training to make him able
If training is insufficient create a bubble
   The characteristics of the bubble are: a secure space of limited size, in which economic activity can thrive, and outside which a cordon sanitaire can be created working with locals
Act in concert with other self-interested allies (US, China, EU - il n'y a pas de quoi - principles be damned)

The historic models for this are Calcutta, Singapore, Hong Kong, Shanghai and every Royal Burgh and Freistadt in Europe.

This would suggest that a focus on the Canadian Surface Combatant - GBAD - LRPRs to create Iron Dome type structures would be a useful diplomatic tool of intervention.

A Libyan case might be the establishment of a safe haven at the cove by Ayn al Ulaymah outside of Tobruk.   Far enough away to buy some time to set up the base.  Close enough to be accessible to migrants.


Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 93,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #4 on: February 23, 2017, 16:58:58 »
I was thinking more along the lines of what the Liberals would like to see as politically acceptable missions. Providing security to US naval installation from hostile ships might well be within that zone. Scoring minor brownie points with the US with a small battery worth of personal and equipment.

Old Sweat, thanks for the clarification, I thought it was all provided.

Offline jeffb

    Really needs to stop buying guns... .

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,661
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 634
    • Afghan Ops
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #5 on: February 23, 2017, 17:02:47 »
I'm all for this if I get to be a Battery Commander at the Halifax Citadel or Victoria guarding the harbours. Time to bring back the Garrison Artillery!
~ Ubique ~
Simple is better except when complicated looks really cool.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 93,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #6 on: February 23, 2017, 17:23:20 »
I suspect you be spending most of your time looking at a radar screen, making coffee on a Colman stove and using a outhouse



Offline Old Sweat

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 195,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,245
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #7 on: February 23, 2017, 17:29:52 »

Old Sweat, thanks for the clarification, I thought it was all provided.

And despite having our own SSM training organization, the Brits insisted that officers posted to 1 SSM in Germany take something called the Honest John Change of Category Course in Larkhill. They of course charged us a lot for the course, including the cost of the rocket fired a the end of the course. This went on for a number of years, Ottawa apparently being under the impression that every student fired a rocket. A Canadian officer on his course discovered we were paying for the rocket for the course, and he demanded he fire it. The Brits refused, at which point CDLS(L) asked for our rocket back. He, and subsequent Canadian students fired the rockets the Canadian taxpayer had payed for.

As for the return of coast artillery, it seems to me things would have to have gone rather pear-shaped, if enemy naval units are able to approach our coasts, "our" not necessarily meaning North American territory. At one stage, just for fun I did a bit of research into the development of coast artillery tactics and equipment. In its final form, it was layered with different calibre's having different roles. As ranges and our ability to hit a moving target a long away from shore increased the numbers of guns were reduced because we could achieve the desired effect.

As I say again, show me a real threat, and no, I don't think it is a low risk role that would get us a lot of brownie points. The only time I heard anything that had a little merit and the operative term word was little, and not merit, was a suggestion circa 1970 we establish batteries at choke points on the North West Passage and conduct enough firing practices to deter unauthorized use of it by foreign flags.

Air defence is a different matter.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 374,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 20,522
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #8 on: February 23, 2017, 18:13:24 »
+300
“Most great military blunders stem from the good intentions of some high-ranking buffoon ...” – George MacDonald Fraser, "The Sheik and the Dustbin"

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 82,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,571
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #9 on: February 23, 2017, 18:30:48 »
I'm all for this if I get to be a Battery Commander at the Halifax Citadel or Victoria guarding the harbours. Time to bring back the Garrison Artillery!

Not the way the CAF works: You'll get stuck at the Georges Island or Albert Head batteries.  [:D

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 414,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,010
  • Crewman
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #10 on: February 23, 2017, 18:58:09 »
Not the way the CAF works: You'll get stuck at the Georges Island or Albert Head batteries.  [:D

Why not St. John's or Prince George....... >:D
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline ModlrMike

    : Riding time again... woohooo!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 187,629
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,292
    • Canadian Association of Physician Assistants
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #11 on: February 24, 2017, 00:44:16 »
Let us not forget the north coast!
WARNING: The consumption of alcohol may create the illusion that you are tougher,smarter, faster and better looking than most people.
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit upon his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats. (H.L. Mencken 1919)
Zero tolerance is the politics of the lazy. All it requires is that you do nothing and ban everything.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 158,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,181
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #12 on: February 24, 2017, 02:03:52 »
The Argentinian's land based Exocet batteries were pretty nasty, as the HMS Glamorgan discovered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glamorgan_(D19)



"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 168,316
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,610
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #13 on: February 24, 2017, 07:54:55 »
From the Canadian perspective, why would we do this?

What choke points are we defending, and from whom?

If these are offensive tools, then what nation is going to allow us to emplace them overseas?

If they are defensive tools, who are we defending Canada from?  The handful of Russian 'Trawlers' that have been seen off the east coast?

The vulnerability of fixed defences on a modern battlefield has been proven time and again, particularly if facing near peer enemies. 

I see in the article that the intent is to have an army-centric ground-based ASM capability in the Pacific Theatre.  How much capability are they looking for?  Are they looking to stave off small attacks (a la ARA Guerrico - South Georgia - Les Malvinas) in which case, existing ATGM's may suffice, but it appears that the intent is to provide the ability to defend a bubble around an island and enable the Navy to worry about other areas.

That's a LOT of capability being sought...that's more than just shoulder-fired local defence capability, that's a RADAR station for detection, with long-range Anti-Ship Missiles.  (Truck mounted Harpoons at least.)

In the environment that seems to be proposed, facing a potential Chinese threat, does it make sense to invest in fixed ground installations instead of moving seaborne platforms?

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 414,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,010
  • Crewman
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #14 on: February 24, 2017, 08:24:16 »
NavyShooter

Such a system, for the Army, would likely be very similar to Russian Anti-Aircraft units with dedicated mobile Radar, Control and Erector systems.  All segments of it would be portable. 

DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 43,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 521
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #15 on: February 24, 2017, 10:20:51 »
Wouldn't it make more sense to have mobile launchers on the ground and airborne radar units to do the detecting? 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 93,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #16 on: February 24, 2017, 10:21:19 »
I think the US plan is to have the army to provide defense to forward supply hubs, freeing up ships. Also places like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diego_Garcia
or any of the choke points in the Pacific. I suspect it's also a political move to force the PLA to realize their ships would also be at risk and do area denial.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 414,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,010
  • Crewman
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #17 on: February 24, 2017, 10:41:40 »
Wouldn't it make more sense to have mobile launchers on the ground and airborne radar units to do the detecting?

Airborne radar units to do the detecting?  How long would they be "on station"?  How would their coverage be affected by weather?

If they are to be employed, they would just be an additional/interlocking resource.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 82,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,571
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #18 on: February 24, 2017, 10:59:19 »
Actually George, airborne radar degrades less than fixed surface radar when used over the ocean, so the weather would affect the shore base radar more than the airborne one. As for time on station, a LRMPA operating from the "hub" it is defending should have no trouble remaining on station for 10 to 12 hours at a time.

Offline Ostrozac

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 25,160
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 619
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #19 on: February 24, 2017, 14:16:36 »
From the Canadian perspective, why would we do this?

That's a good point. You would think that if the Canadian Forces wanted to sink some ships that we would do it with Harpoon fired from CF-18. And given that Canada never developed the anti shipping role for the Hornet (a role it was designed for in USN service), and no one has really missed the capability, you'd think that it is a mission that doesn't come up that often.

Now for the US ground based anti ship missiles might have a role in defence of far flung islands like Diego Garcia and Guam -- it might be a better option than defending them with fighters, but Canada lacks such outposts. (CFB Turks and Caicos never did get established).
« Last Edit: February 25, 2017, 13:09:31 by Ostrozac »

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,978
  • Freespeecher
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #20 on: February 24, 2017, 15:54:19 »
We might get more bang for the buck with a slightly different approach.

Using long range fiber optic guided missiles as regular artillery, we would be able to attack high value targets at ranges of up to 60 km (using something like the Polyphem Fibre-Optic-Guided Missile System). If the truck happens to drive to the shoreline and launch a missile at a target at sea, the same effect can be achieved, so long as the truck/battery has access to targeting data from an external source which is tracking the enemy ship. Since the Polyphem is a FOG-M, the operator can actually identify the target and guide it in on the final approach, if required.

LR guided missile artillery should be able to deal with lots of targets at ranges that are infeasible for conventional artillery, and also to deal with high value targets in complex terrain which other weapons systems are not able to attack, and even have the ability to threaten helicopters in rotor defilade, so this is not a "one trick pony".
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 93,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #21 on: February 24, 2017, 16:24:01 »
60km fiber optic cable, man I don't want to wrap that around my shaft!!

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 414,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,010
  • Crewman
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #22 on: February 24, 2017, 16:25:19 »
Not to mention that 60 km is not that great a distance in these instances.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline jeffb

    Really needs to stop buying guns... .

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 24,661
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 634
    • Afghan Ops
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #23 on: February 24, 2017, 21:34:17 »
As an Army officer it almost pains me to say this but I have to agree that a better investment in the Canadian context would be in more ships. Our interests are better served in projecting power from our shores rather then meeting threats in the last 60km or so. The only possible area I could see deploying this would be in a future North-West passage scenario but this is better served through a combination of naval power cued by long-endurance UAV's mixed in with an air platform that can deliver some type of anti-ship missile (manned or unmanned).

I get why the Americans, with an already robust rocket capability, would want to extend this to free up their high-value, low-quantity (given their requirements) naval assets from littoral defence; it just doesn't make sense in Canada to me. The US also has the added challenge of numerous small "outposts" all over the world or a future scenario in which they might be facing an adversary who could deny them, at least for a short period of time, access to certain areas (Persian Gulf for example) using shore based systems. The ability to reciprocate with our own shore based missiles based in friendly locations might be helpful.
~ Ubique ~
Simple is better except when complicated looks really cool.

Offline George Wallace

  • Army.ca Fossil
  • *****
  • 414,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 31,010
  • Crewman
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #24 on: February 25, 2017, 09:33:41 »
I have to agree with you jeffb.

The US has the "numbers" to have such "luxuries".  We do not. 

The other thing to remember is that this suggestion in a Canadian scenario, is not to have a "stand alone" system as the be all/end all.  It would have to be one system within a number of systems that would only work if they are integrated.  The requirement for Air and Naval elements would not be diminished, as this would only be a system to compliment them.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions and arguments of George Wallace posted on this Site are solely those of George Wallace and not the opinion of Army.ca and are posted for information purposes only.

Any postings made by me which are made on behalf of Army.ca will be followed by the statement "George, Milnet.ca Staff".

Unless so stated, they are reflective of my opinion -- and my opinion only, a right that I enjoy along with every other Canadian citizen.

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 417
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #25 on: February 25, 2017, 13:32:26 »
Why would we even want or need a capability like this?  Every Canadian capability should be at a minimum very mobile.  The local geography is large and we are far away from trouble spots.  If you want to sink ships invest in the air/naval capability to do it.  Air launched anti-ship missiles would be a great start before you even thought about land-based missiles.  You could change requirements for the  Long-Range Precision Rocket System (which may have died a bureaucratic death by now...).

Personally, if you want the army to have missiles how about a return of a Multi-mission effects vehicle type concept a SHORAD system.  Or maybe just more anti-tank missile capability.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 51,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,355
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #26 on: February 25, 2017, 13:57:52 »
Coastal defence was the excuse the US Army Air Corps gave for initially acquiring the B-17 though of course they wanted it for Douhet-type strategice bombing:

Quote
...Headlines on the following day [17 July 1935] announced the new'15-ton Flying Fortress', and seizing upon the name the company had it registered as the official name of its Model 299. Contrary to popular belief, this was not because of its defensive armament, but because it was procured as an aircraft which would be operated as a mobile flying fortress to protect America's coastline, a concept which needs some explanation.

USAAC protagonists of air power were still compelled to step warily, despite procurement of the B-10 bomber, for the US Navy had the most prestigious support in the corridors of power and was determined to keep the upstart US Army in its place. Even if strategic bombers were required, efforts must be made to prevent the US Army acquiring such machines. The USAAC was, however, quite astute when needs be and so, with tongue in cheek, succeeded in procuring 13 YB-17s, the original service designation of the Fortress, for coastal defence...

The utilisation of the Y1B-17s, designated B-17 in service with the 2nd Bombardment Group, did little to improve relations between the US Army and US Navy. When three of the force were used [12 May 1938] to stage an 'interception' of the Italian liner Rex some 750 miles (1207 km) out in the Atlantic, to demonstrate that the USAAC was more than capable of defending the nation's coastline, it sparked a row which dispersed the air power disciples from General Headquarters Air Force (GHQAF) to other commands, where they were remote from each other and potential influential supporters. Orders for additional B-17s had to be reduced after it had been underlined by Major General Stanley D. Embrick that . . . "the military superiority of a B-17 over the two or three smaller aircraft which could be procured with the same funds has yet to be established." This helps explain why, despite the growing war clouds in Europe, the USAAC had less than 30 B-17s when Hitler's forces invaded Poland on 1 September 1939...
http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/2/Boeing%20B%2017.htm

More:

Quote
Rendezvous With the Rex
...


Two B-17s, having spotted the Italian liner Rex in the Atlantic, move into position to simulate an attack [note low-level as with Fw 200 Condor].

The scenario postulated an aggressor—a combination of adversaries from Europe and Asia. Enemy airplanes, warships, and troops would be employed to attack and attempt to capture industrial territory in the northeastern United States. The US Navy would be busy in the Pacific, so GHQ Air Force had to defend the eastern seaboard. A seaborne invasion force was headed for New England.

The scenario called for Air Corps airplanes to find the enemy force at sea before its aircraft carriers could attack, but no US ships were available to play the part of the enemy. The Navy, then conducting its own fleet exercises in the Pacific, was not about to give Andrews any of its ships to use as targets for his B-17s. Without Navy participation, it appeared that GHQ Air Force would have to fly out, simulate the intercept of ships, and fly back.

Then, with the maneuvers already under way, there emerged an opportunity to use an actual ship for the intercept and gain other advantages for the Air Corps as well.

Andrews had borrowed from the Air Staff Lt. Col. Ira C. Eaker, who was chief of its Information Division. Eaker was to serve as G-2 (intelligence) for the maneuvers and to handle the press. Eaker brought with him Reserve 2nd Lt. Harris B. Hull, a reporter for the Washington Post who had been called to active duty for the exercise. Hull learned that the Italian cruise liner Rex was about 1,000 miles offshore, inbound to New York. He suggested an "intercept" of Rex to Eaker, who proposed it to Andrews, who was all for it. It was a splendid opportunity to bring the range and capability of the B-17 to public attention...
http://www.airforcemag.com/MagazineArchive/pages/2008/december%202008/1208rex.aspx

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,978
  • Freespeecher
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #27 on: February 25, 2017, 14:20:38 »
WRT shore based artillery, a FOG-M with a 60km capability would be somewhat short ranged for that mission, but since this would be a secondary purpose for the battery, a range of 60km is almost double the range of a 155mm cannon shell, so sufficient for the primary tasking. Also since Polyphem was a project from the early 2000's, it seems pretty straightforward to extrapolate a much longer range from that technology today.

As far as the primary anti shipping task, if we were to settle on a FOG-M, a missile such as Polyphem can also be carried and fired from ships and helicopters as well. This actually plays into one of my other arguments in procurement: buying in bulk to gain economies of scale. Using a long range FOG-M (or indeed any) missile which can be carried and fired from vehicles, ships and aircraft against a multitude of targets means you can not only buy more of the munitions, but can also have some complimentary effects (a battery on shore can fire at a ship, but a Canadian ship can also support forces on land as well).
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 158,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,181
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2017, 00:18:18 »
Why would we even want or need a capability like this?  Every Canadian capability should be at a minimum very mobile.  The local geography is large and we are far away from trouble spots.  If you want to sink ships invest in the air/naval capability to do it.  Air launched anti-ship missiles would be a great start before you even thought about land-based missiles.  You could change requirements for the  Long-Range Precision Rocket System (which may have died a bureaucratic death by now...).

Personally, if you want the army to have missiles how about a return of a Multi-mission effects vehicle type concept a SHORAD system.  Or maybe just more anti-tank missile capability.

Our defensive positions around Riga might find them useful one day:

Latvia’s National Armed Forces (NBS) patrol vessel P-05 Skrunda reported spotting two Russian navy vessels maneuvering close to Latvia’s territorial waters Monday.

http://www.lsm.lv/en/article/politics/russian-navy-sub-and-warship-edge-by-latvian-waters.a95014/
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 93,945
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,356
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2017, 10:15:37 »
Even a system with a  60km range basically can secure all of the Gulf of Riga from Latvian shore and almost halfway to Gotland.

Offline Loch Sloy!

  • New Member
  • **
  • 450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 37
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2017, 12:48:16 »
Given the growing importance of the Northwest Passage, and the fact that many nations do not recognize this passage as Canadian internal waters, there might be something to this concept for the Arctic theater of operations.

The Northwest Passage is quite narrow so environment challenges aside it might not take a very complex system to cover the passage. Perhaps a system at Resolute (and/or Cambridge Bay) and another at Kugluktuk (sp?) would due the trick.

If nothing else it would be a good posting to motivate/ demotivate the artillery. ;)

However if we are spending money on missiles I would say we have more pressing needs... man-portable ATGMs for the infantry, HIMARS, an AA capability of any kind... the list goes on.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
--Ben Franklin

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,380
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2017, 13:10:12 »
Given the growing importance of the Northwest Passage, and the fact that many nations do not recognize this passage as Canadian internal waters, there might be something to this concept for the Arctic theater of operations.

The Northwest Passage is quite narrow so environment challenges aside it might not take a very complex system to cover the passage. Perhaps a system at Resolute (and/or Cambridge Bay) and another at Kugluktuk (sp?) would due the trick.

If nothing else it would be a good posting to motivate/ demotivate the artillery. ;)

However if we are spending money on missiles I would say we have more pressing needs... man-portable ATGMs for the infantry, HIMARS, an AA capability of any kind... the list goes on.

Man-portable missiles are one thing - AT, AA, A-Pers, A-Structure.

But HIMARS is something else again - It is essentially just a box on a truck.  And so far the original truck carries boxes of all the original rockets as well as the precision rockets and has the capacity to launch the 250 lb class guided bombs - and - it can carry the ATACMS family of rockets.  Concurrently, as has been noted, there is the Common Launcher push capable of launching all manner of missiles for all manner of targets.  And there is the NASAMs Multi Missile Launcher - another box to put on the back of the truck.

It seems to me that one truck, with a variety of boxes, with a variety of missiles, with a variety of warheads, with a variety of seekers and nav systems covers a lot of capability gaps.  Especially when allied with a broad spectrum ISTAR capability.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Loch Sloy!

  • New Member
  • **
  • 450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 37
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2017, 16:12:03 »
Quote
It seems to me that one truck, with a variety of boxes, with a variety of missiles, with a variety of warheads, with a variety of seekers and nav systems covers a lot of capability gaps.  Especially when allied with a broad spectrum ISTAR capability.

I couldn't agree more. Something like HIMARS could theoretically cover a big air-defence gap in the CAF (as I understand it we currently have no ground based air-defence... which strikes me as appallingly short sighted) and would also give us the ability to destroy a grid square from 300km away... sounds good to me. I would be surprised if there isn't also potential to do shore based anti-shipping tasks too.

As for the ATGM plug, as a dirty faced mudfoot I couldn't help but throw in a comment from the peanut gallery for a weapons system that everyone acknowledges we sorely lack at the moment. Having said that I believe that there have been some use of these weapons against ships in Egypt and Yemen. Also if it was Spike instead of Javelin the Finnish coastal Jaegers intentionally deploy them in the anti ship role.
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who kept their swords.
--Ben Franklin

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,380
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #33 on: March 01, 2017, 19:10:16 »
The rationale for the initiative:

They are available
They are proven
They are numerous
They are small
They are cheap
They have lots of reloads
Compared to carriers and cruisers they can relocate quickly after launch.
They have growth potential
They can be supplied to allies (at a deep Trump negotiated discount).


Quote
AUTHOR: JEREMY HSU. DATE OF PUBLICATION: 03.01.17.

THE ARMY GETS BACK IN THE SHIP-KILLING BUSINESS

SINCE 1996, THE Chinese military has steadily expanded its umbrella of land-based missiles, strike aircraft, and submarines designed to overwhelm both US air bases and carrier strike groups. That buildup aims to discourage the US military from potentially intervening in China’s territorial disputes with neighboring Asian countries. Now, the US response appears to be taking shape, first in the form of a new use for an old weapons system.

In late 2016, the Pentagon announced that it would convert the Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS), a weapon typically fired from a truck-mounted rocket launcher, into a guided ballistic missile capable of hitting moving warships. That represents a planned upgrade of an existing Army missile that can strike targets at distances of about 186 miles. It could also form the linchpin of a US “forward defense” strategy meant to keep China from becoming too aggressive with its growing naval power.

“For a long time, the US has taken air and sea supremacy for granted,” says Cmdr. Keith Patton, deputy chair of the Strategic and Operational Research Department at the US Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. “Now the military is looking back again to see what can be done and what can be defended; people are rediscovering their past.”

Sea Change

Conversion of the Army missile into a ship-killing weapon is a “logical step” given US security concerns in the near future, says Patton. The weapon already has a proven combat record from the 1991 Gulf War and the post-9/11 wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. And if not for limitations imposed by the Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, it could have even greater long-distance strike capability.

The shift to the sea represents a sharp change from the US Army’s focus for most of the past 70 years. While coastal artillery guns still played a role in WWII, the dominance of long-range bombers and aircraft carriers eventually made large, fixed guns obsolete as shore defenses.

“After World War II, the US was seen as unchallenged at sea, with the possible exception of Soviet submarines,” Patton explains. “Coastal defense artillery, or even missiles, could not help with that threat, and would have been a distraction to Army’s primary mission of winning a major land war in Europe.”

These days, the US no longer holds such a clear oceanic advantage. China has the world’s largest conventional ballistic missile force, and two different types of anti-ship ballistic missiles designed to kill ships such as US Navy carriers. By 2020, the Chinese military will also match or exceed the US military in number of surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and anti-ship cruise missiles, said Andrew Erickson, professor of strategy in the US Naval War College’s China Maritime Studies Institute, during a hearing for the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission on Feb. 23. He added that China would “unambiguously” have the world’s second-largest blue water navy by 2020.

China’s growing naval power has inadvertently highlighted the gaps in US anti-ship capabilities. The US military’s primary anti-ship weapon has been the sea-skimming Harpoon missile that flies slower than the speed of sound. By comparison, ATACMS with an upgraded guidance system could become a ballistic anti-ship weapon that dives toward targets at speeds of up to Mach 3.

Scoot and Shoot

The US Army already plans to train for its “multi-domain battle” role in possibly firing land-based missiles at enemy warships. Such anti-ship weapons may also end up being sold to US allies in the Pacific. It’s one thing for an adversary to target a huge US aircraft carrier or static air base, but it’s another matter entirely to try tracking dozens of mobile missile launchers mounted on trucks. “With an aircraft carrier or an airfield, you could hit the runway and disable it for a while,” Patton says. “But the US military has learned how hard it is to track small, missile-launched vehicles.”

The shoot-and-scoot mobility of rocket trucks is just one advantage of the land-based missile systems, says David Johnson, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, D.C. Unlike anti-ship weapons carried by aircraft or naval vessels, land-based weapons can have “deep magazines,” with no serious physical limitation on the number of missiles available. And the ATACMS conversion may just be the start, as the US military develops a next generation of land-based missiles that could target ships in any military theater of operation.

“ATACMS is attractive because it’s already been developed—you may have to change the guidance technology, but it’s an approved system,” Johnson says. “Whether it’s an interim solution or just an idea to start thinking of how to solve the problem, long-ranged fire is an advantage that these systems will bring to those theaters that will complement joint military operations.”

That aligns with recent US military strategic thinking on the Pacific. A 2013 RAND report sponsored by the US Army suggested that “the strategic placement of anti-ship missile systems” could help deter open conflict by “significantly raising the cost for China,” or actively “interdict warships” or “be used to form a full blockade of critical waterways in times of war.”

Land-based missiles may also offer a solution to a current dilemma faced by the US military in supporting Asian countries that often face off with China over competing territorial claims. The U.S. has traditionally relied on forward air bases and carrier strike groups—such as the USS Carl Vinson group that embarked on a patrol of the South China Sea in February—to provide highly visible reassurance to allies in the Pacific-Asia region. But such high-visibility military assets are also the most vulnerable to China’s many missile-armed forces if it came to open conflict.

The US military could sidestep this dilemma if it chose to “emulate China by fielding mobile, land-based missile forces of its own,” said Evan Montgomery, a senior fellow at CSBA, in a recent report titled “Reinforcing the Front Line: US Defense Strategy and the Rise of China.” Land-based anti-ship missiles positioned on the territory of U.S. allies could provide the same reassurance while also being much less vulnerable militarily—and perhaps reduce the overall risk of open war by acting as a powerful deterrent.

There is always the possibility that China would take a dim view of US military moves to reinforce its allies with land-based missiles. But any potentially stabilizing strategy beyond the status quo would be welcome, as tensions in the South China Sea continue to bubble and brew.

https://www.wired.com/2017/03/army-converting-missiles-ship-killers-china/
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 158,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,181
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #34 on: March 01, 2017, 19:16:53 »
The rationale for the initiative:

They are available
They are proven
They are numerous
They are small
They are cheap
They have lots of reloads
Compared to carriers and cruisers they can relocate quickly after launch.
They have growth potential
They can be supplied to allies (at a deep Trump negotiated discount).


https://www.wired.com/2017/03/army-converting-missiles-ship-killers-china/

I like the idea of killing things 200kms away with a Mach 3 missile.

And then... the Satellite laser batteries will be deployed to nail the counter-battery action!
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,978
  • Freespeecher
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #35 on: March 31, 2017, 01:15:50 »
Missiles in a box might be a viable solution to many of our own artillery woes. This proposal uses a 15 round launcher box o the back of an medium truck as a SHORAD launcher, but the article states that Hellfire missiles can be launched from it as well. It really doesn't take much to start thinking about what other rockets or missiles can be fired from this, so in the ideal world, several hundred trucks with boxes could be purchased, and distributed among the various artillery regiments.

Some would fire SAMs, some might carry guided missiles to attack ground targets and some might just carry dumb rockets for saturating area targets. Long range guided missiles would be a good compliment for tube artillery.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 158,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,181
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #36 on: March 31, 2017, 09:59:34 »
Some would fire SAMs, some might carry guided missiles to attack ground targets and some might just carry dumb rockets for saturating area targets. Long range guided missiles would be a good compliment for tube artillery.

Whoa, whoa, whoa... now you're encroaching on my job: Paratroopers :)
+450
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline EricBoss

  • EricBoss
  • Guest
  • *
  • 40
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #37 on: April 01, 2017, 04:23:07 »
Lucky for us, the countries we are fighting right now don't even have proper weapons, let alone any ships :)

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 158,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,181
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #38 on: April 01, 2017, 15:37:45 »
Lucky for us, the countries we are fighting right now don't even have proper weapons, let alone any ships :)

Not really. Good enemies make us stronger.

If you want to see what weaker third world enemies do to first world armies study the opening phases of the Boer War and see how well the British did in the face of some first world like opposition following decades of 'golly bashing' in the colonies.
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,380
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #39 on: April 12, 2017, 15:21:09 »
Quote
LM Canada planned a land-based test site (LBTS) to
be constructed in the Dartmouth area of Nova Scotia that
would support the validation of the combat system design
prior to setting to work on the first refitted ship. The LBTS
would utilize the 13th shipset of equipment destined for
the Combat System Training Centre, and provide an
integration environment with realistic sensor performance.
The power was designed to match the three-phase supplies
on the ships, and shipboard type cables would be used to
closely replicate the shipboard design. Critical ship
equipment interfacing with the combat system was
selected, along with the design for the test scenario
generator used in the combat system training devices and
simulated equipment models. A rooftop platform was
planned that would allow the installation of all selected
sensors (2D, 3D and navigation radars, Identification
Friend or Foe (IFF), electronic support measures (ESM),
and fire-control radars), such that they could radiate and
detect real-world air targets in the local area.

I saw this in the Maritime Engineering Journal as posted here.

http://navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,76442.msg1483531.html#msg1483531 

Page 37.

In line with Gunners sinking ships and discussions of GBAD/LRPRS integration with the RCN - 

Did this facility get built? 
Is it still standing?
Have the RCA considered playing with it to see whether or not the same architecture can accommodate some of the kit they are considering?

It seems to me that it would a useful platform to explore commonalities and differences and how to bridge or exploit differences.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 168,316
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,610
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #40 on: April 12, 2017, 17:45:32 »
Quote
Did this facility get built? 
Is it still standing?
Have the RCA considered playing with it to see whether or not the same architecture can accommodate some of the kit they are considering?

Yes,
Yes.

BUT.

The LBTS was assembled in Dartmouth, and was used to validate and test the operational software, with the eventual understanding/plan being that it would be shut down and moved to Halifax for installation at the Pullen Building.

I haven't been in the Pullen Building much since this whole move was in progress....so I'm not sure how that's going.

As for getting access to it....well...the RCN was supposed to be going to multiple shifts per day to stagger the access to the systems.  Techs, Operators, and developers all need a chance to play with it.

NS
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline sunrayRnfldR

  • Guest
  • *
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #41 on: April 12, 2017, 20:59:29 »
The Lockheed facility has had the various antennae removed for some months so one assumes the equipment has been relocated to the Pullen Building or elsewhere within Stadacona.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,795
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,380
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Using the Army to sink ships?
« Reply #42 on: April 12, 2017, 22:27:39 »
Thanks to both for the info.

I can understand the need for the facility as a training fixture and why it might be getting a lot of use. 

But

I still think it could also serve as an interesting experimental facility as well, or at least, as the basis of an experimental facility.

And I know people react to the word "play" but I use it advisedly.  Its all very well to see if a thing does what it is supposed to do but it can also be instructive to see what else might happen when doing things it's not supposed to do. 

I would like to see what would happen if you plugged in the RCA's MRR radar and perhaps a NASAMS launcher and  a pair of Millenium guns.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]