Comments on: GOP Keeps Heat On Euro Missile Plan http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/02/gop-keeps-heat-on-euro-plan/ Online Defense and Acquisition Journal Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:19:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Curthttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/02/gop-keeps-heat-on-euro-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-14890 Curt Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:23:43 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10180#comment-14890 There is a real problem with the comment that you have five to six days to get ships in position because potential threats use pad launched missiles. It may be that you see something but not recognize what it means. A prime example of this was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Everyone saw the build-up, no one realized where it was leading. A second problem is that you are never sure if you know where all the launch pads are located and of course the could go to silo launched missiles somewhere down the road. Finally, if you ships are doing something else important, they may not be immediately available to surge to your new location. After all, you have them on patrol in the first place because of a reason. It is important to remember that the enemy gets to decide what to do. They could simply start to erect missiles on the launch pad, watch the ships scramble, then announce a loading exercise and stand down. Do that a few dozen times and the people will quit reacting or you will run the ships into the ground. To provide 3 ships on station full time will require something like 12 ships, maybe more, when you include training, redundancy, transit times, upkeep, logisitics, etc. There is a real problem with the comment that you have five to six days to get ships in position because potential threats use pad launched missiles. It may be that you see something but not recognize what it means. A prime example of this was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. Everyone saw the build-up, no one realized where it was leading. A second problem is that you are never sure if you know where all the launch pads are located and of course the could go to silo launched missiles somewhere down the road. Finally, if you ships are doing something else important, they may not be immediately available to surge to your new location. After all, you have them on patrol in the first place because of a reason. It is important to remember that the enemy gets to decide what to do. They could simply start to erect missiles on the launch pad, watch the ships scramble, then announce a loading exercise and stand down. Do that a few dozen times and the people will quit reacting or you will run the ships into the ground. To provide 3 ships on station full time will require something like 12 ships, maybe more, when you include training, redundancy, transit times, upkeep, logisitics, etc.

]]> By: sferrinhttp://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/10/02/gop-keeps-heat-on-euro-plan/comment-page-1/#comment-14887 sferrin Tue, 06 Oct 2009 01:03:46 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/?p=10180#comment-14887 Given that the most likely target of an Iranian ICBM would be the US East coast one has to wonder what the good general is thinking when he says, "But Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, Missile Defense Agency director, said during the Thursday hearing that the GBI sites in Alaska and California are perfectly placed to counter any long-range Iranian threata should they be deployed before all elements of the new plan are in place." Any shot from Iran to the East coast would be FAR out of reach of any California or Alaska-based GBI. Given that the most likely target of an Iranian ICBM would be the US East coast one has to wonder what the good general is thinking when he says,

“But Army Lt. Gen. Patrick O’Reilly, Missile Defense Agency director, said during the Thursday hearing that the GBI sites in Alaska and California are perfectly placed to counter any long-range Iranian threata should they be deployed before all elements of the new plan are in place.”

Any shot from Iran to the East coast would be FAR out of reach of any California or Alaska-based GBI.

]]>