The SM-6 with booster is around a foot longer than the Tomahawk with the booster. The Army is using the same container based Mk 41 strike version 4-cell launcher.
>The Army is using the same container based Mk 41 strike version 4-cell launcher.
Their Typhon project is slated to carry Tomahawks and SM-6, so make of that what you will.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I know. It's the same launcher that the Navy is using, as the missiles are Navy developments. It will keep the costs down.
2 years ago
Anonymous
What I don't get is why the Army doesn't just go all in with the Navy and get an ESSM variant for their mid range air defense needs since the latest versions are no longer SARH.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Mostly the NASAM does most of that already.
2 years ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/vfjING6.jpg
They have the AMRAAM-ER for the NASAM, which is an ESSM missile mated to the AMRAAM seeker and warhead. Which could be quad packed just like the ESSM in the Mk. 41 VLS cell. I suspect they will do that. Army doesn't like using Navy systems as it cuts into their future budget. Though, it seems to be changing fast. They, also, have the Dynetics' Enduring Shield which is the old Multi Mission Launcher that fires AIM-9X, and AMRAAM directives that just won out over Iron Dome.
I forgot NASAM is no longer just a ground launched AMRAAM
2 years ago
Anonymous
Gonna be honest, a ground launched AMRAAM is good enough for mid ranged air defense.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Seems to be an excellent missile, too. You would expect that from combining two fantastic systems, though. The ESSM block II uses the seeker from the SM-6. The Air Force and Navy are also looking to integrate the AMRAAM-ER into the F-35A/C for internal carry, along with the other 3 or so upgrades coming to the AIM-120D AMRAAM, and the new AIM-260 getting tested now. Then, they have been testing an air-launched SM-6 without the booster on F/A-18s. It seems they will have quite the stable of BVR missiles for decades to come.
2 years ago
Anonymous
They have the AMRAAM-ER for the NASAM, which is an ESSM missile mated to the AMRAAM seeker and warhead. Which could be quad packed just like the ESSM in the Mk. 41 VLS cell. I suspect they will do that. Army doesn't like using Navy systems as it cuts into their future budget. Though, it seems to be changing fast. They, also, have the Dynetics' Enduring Shield which is the old Multi Mission Launcher that fires AIM-9X, and AMRAAM directives that just won out over Iron Dome.
"Sir, everything related to our international trade and shipping infrastructure is based around and optimized for moving boxes of a specific dimension"
"Splendid, make the new weapon that dimension"
Basically, the ISO did it. In 1968 it set 4 reccomendations for how to do standard shipping containers and the rest of the world just rolled with it. Kinda a "why not? We've got to agree with some sort of standard or we'll be hand loading and unloading for the rest of our lives."
Few, primarily the US.
I’m referring to land based coverage with reference to Ukraine. The Russians are targeting civilian infrastructure and this would lead to more indiscriminate loss.
Food, water, and medical resources may be shipped in times of emergency via cargo containers. If we start popping off missiles or drones from the same structure there will be civilian casualties. At the same token, it could be a motivator to rally support from moderates against such an aggressor.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'd bet money on this being aimed for deployment in places like islands in southeast asia
I see they used their brand new stealth technology
>Navy "forward planning" expands the number of VLS tubes >in twenty years, but since (we) "forgot" to make regular investments, for the next 15 years there's going to be 200+ VLS tubes SHORT >oh hai, we can deploy VLS tubes on a shipping container if necessary >order 150 of those, please >and the ships to but them? >just drop them in the ocean, that'll do
they are creating urban camo weapons so they can kill civilians discretely
Cope, vatnig. Come back when your S-300s don't return to sender their missiles. It's easy to make your systems cheap when you don't care if they work or are reliable. Or you're just making chinesium copies of shitty Soviet/Russian systems. Now, back to the field HQ so HIMARS can destroy you with pinpoint accuracy, reliability, and repeatability.
Erusea reinforced their hold on the space elevator by hiding UAVs in the nearby city that way, yeah. I forget if they ever used them that way offensively.
>Navy "forward planning" expands the number of VLS tubes >in twenty years, but since (we) "forgot" to make regular investments, for the next 15 years there's going to be 200+ VLS tubes SHORT >oh hai, we can deploy VLS tubes on a shipping container if necessary >order 150 of those, please >and the ships to but them? >just drop them in the ocean, that'll do
So would this be the new "Cruise ship CVL conversion" meme in case of a conflict against a peer enemy? We would probably build more ships, but in the interim if we needed more missile boats we could take container ships? Throw these VLS tubes on them, throw some CIWS, 20mm Autocanons and a Marine Security Group along with a surface and air radar and call it good? Seems cost efficient to me.
>US Should mirror the actions of a communist regime, which put the communist regime at odds with international community in the first place
Nice try at moral equivalence comrade
a fricking shipping container
Basically, "how do we get more vls cells without having to pay to commission 100 more ships and crew and maintain them"
Also could be used with the US army's new vls ashore system thats coming in 2025
Possibly, though they want pretty large cells since they already have plans for using SM-6 and Tomahawks.
The SM-6 with booster is around a foot longer than the Tomahawk with the booster. The Army is using the same container based Mk 41 strike version 4-cell launcher.
>The Army is using the same container based Mk 41 strike version 4-cell launcher.
Their Typhon project is slated to carry Tomahawks and SM-6, so make of that what you will.
I know. It's the same launcher that the Navy is using, as the missiles are Navy developments. It will keep the costs down.
What I don't get is why the Army doesn't just go all in with the Navy and get an ESSM variant for their mid range air defense needs since the latest versions are no longer SARH.
Mostly the NASAM does most of that already.
I forgot NASAM is no longer just a ground launched AMRAAM
Gonna be honest, a ground launched AMRAAM is good enough for mid ranged air defense.
Seems to be an excellent missile, too. You would expect that from combining two fantastic systems, though. The ESSM block II uses the seeker from the SM-6. The Air Force and Navy are also looking to integrate the AMRAAM-ER into the F-35A/C for internal carry, along with the other 3 or so upgrades coming to the AIM-120D AMRAAM, and the new AIM-260 getting tested now. Then, they have been testing an air-launched SM-6 without the booster on F/A-18s. It seems they will have quite the stable of BVR missiles for decades to come.
They have the AMRAAM-ER for the NASAM, which is an ESSM missile mated to the AMRAAM seeker and warhead. Which could be quad packed just like the ESSM in the Mk. 41 VLS cell. I suspect they will do that. Army doesn't like using Navy systems as it cuts into their future budget. Though, it seems to be changing fast. They, also, have the Dynetics' Enduring Shield which is the old Multi Mission Launcher that fires AIM-9X, and AMRAAM directives that just won out over Iron Dome.
>Don't worry bro am just your usual cargo ship carrying hundreds of random containers bro.
>SIKE
>A container ship? Better shoot at it first and ask questions later.
>It had medical supplies for civilians? What a shame, couldn't be helped.
So...the Club-k?
Yes, but with a SAM.
But shooting down airliners is Russia's shtick.
Yes but with missiles that work
>containers open
>thousands of fricking missiles rise into the sky
Kino.
It's beautiful because it min maxes the logistics aspect of it, as well
"Sir, everything related to our international trade and shipping infrastructure is based around and optimized for moving boxes of a specific dimension"
"Splendid, make the new weapon that dimension"
makes me wonder why are containers that specific size ? how did we all agree on the dimensions ?
Basically, the ISO did it. In 1968 it set 4 reccomendations for how to do standard shipping containers and the rest of the world just rolled with it. Kinda a "why not? We've got to agree with some sort of standard or we'll be hand loading and unloading for the rest of our lives."
This is actually a great idea.
Troubling if the same logistics are targets in war though.
how many world powers can protect container ships in the middle of the atlantic or pacific?
Few, primarily the US.
I’m referring to land based coverage with reference to Ukraine. The Russians are targeting civilian infrastructure and this would lead to more indiscriminate loss.
Food, water, and medical resources may be shipped in times of emergency via cargo containers. If we start popping off missiles or drones from the same structure there will be civilian casualties. At the same token, it could be a motivator to rally support from moderates against such an aggressor.
I'd bet money on this being aimed for deployment in places like islands in southeast asia
The logistics are always targeted, the hard part is getting to them since they're usually behind the enemy Frontline.
>See: German submarine warfare
easy to preposition in china itself
Just slap a Maersk or JB Hunt livery on it and you’ll it becomes undetectable by enemy surveillance.
genius
oh, and it can be mounted on trucks. it carries the SM-6 missile which can be used for air-to-air, air-to-surface, and anti-ballistic roles.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-unveils-truck-mounted-sm-6-missile-launcher-in-european-test
When we getting MQ-99?
>sm-6 in a shipping container
Kek, so the us is just 100% focused on fricking China in a potential future conflict.
>here's a metal box with tubes, that'll be 1 billion dollars
>nooooooooooooooo the missile launcher has to be like a gundam from my anime
:/
Yes.
ah, an image back when PrepHole wasn't complete shit
Let the vatnig and chinsect seething begin.
It probably isn't reusable, either.
Cope, vatnig. Come back when your S-300s don't return to sender their missiles. It's easy to make your systems cheap when you don't care if they work or are reliable. Or you're just making chinesium copies of shitty Soviet/Russian systems. Now, back to the field HQ so HIMARS can destroy you with pinpoint accuracy, reliability, and repeatability.
I see they used their brand new stealth technology
>You will see Transformrs or M.A.S.K. in your lifetime
What a time to be alive!
wasn't this literally in the last ace combat game but with UAVs instead of missiles?
Who says we can shove a uav in there too?
Erusea reinforced their hold on the space elevator by hiding UAVs in the nearby city that way, yeah. I forget if they ever used them that way offensively.
Multiple missions feature container launched UAVs. They only get a specific cutscene highlighting them in the first space elevator mission though.
Yep. What a great game. I bet we will see UAVs launched like this by the end of the decade.
Kratos has you covered.
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30474/this-containerized-launcher-for-the-xq-58a-valkyrie-combat-drone-could-be-a-game-changer
damn put this on every little ship that will fit it
It's going to be the F-35s wingman, so they probably will to increase coverage area.
We Grunder now
WE ERUSEAN NOW
>Navy "forward planning" expands the number of VLS tubes
>in twenty years, but since (we) "forgot" to make regular investments, for the next 15 years there's going to be 200+ VLS tubes SHORT
>oh hai, we can deploy VLS tubes on a shipping container if necessary
>order 150 of those, please
>and the ships to but them?
>just drop them in the ocean, that'll do
turning this shipping container into a autonomous stealth boat would be a cool idea
some Logi officer is having an orgasm right now
Soulless.
So a 4 shot VLS in a shipping container? Not exactly revolutionary but definitely useful.
they are creating urban camo weapons so they can kill civilians discretely
tochka-u but worse..
This shits old. I remember some boomer trying to get funding for this after the Falklands. He kept using the SS Atlantic Conveyor as an example.
So would this be the new "Cruise ship CVL conversion" meme in case of a conflict against a peer enemy? We would probably build more ships, but in the interim if we needed more missile boats we could take container ships? Throw these VLS tubes on them, throw some CIWS, 20mm Autocanons and a Marine Security Group along with a surface and air radar and call it good? Seems cost efficient to me.
i still don't like shipping container weapons. didn't like it when russia and china shilled them, don't like em when the us does
Wow more hiding weapons
Don't be surprised when another "war crime" happens.
This is a grave violation of rules based standards of international conduct.
SHUT YOUR MOUF
Its in response to China's container missile systems. If China doesn't value the norms of warfare, then US should match that.
>US Should mirror the actions of a communist regime, which put the communist regime at odds with international community in the first place
Nice try at moral equivalence comrade
Only the winners decide what the morals are.
But how good can you reload it? And how good can you change location?
The only thing is that this could be a module for a multi-purpose vehicle.