It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Armament 500-cell Vertical Launch System (VLS)
Tomahawk Land-Attack Missiles (TLAMs)
Army Tactical Missile System
Crew ~~ 50; designed to be highly automated
Design Low radar signature ("stealthy")
possible length 500-800 feet
Estimated Number Six vessels
Cost $500-800 Million each
missiles will cost ~~$500 million
Originally posted by Ritual
How are 500 missiles "overwhleming firepower"?
Those missiles could only destroy a few square miles.
Do you know how big the Earth is?
We would need 100000 of these things to display "uneeded firepower".
-1 intelligence for Lucretius.
Originally posted by longbow
I think the new SSGN ( Ohio subs conversions) are much better option. Arsenal ship can do nothing but fire a misilles and SSGNs can do the same. They can carry only 150+ instead of 500, but you only rarely need so much misilles. Besides they are much more stealthy and survivable(radar and satelites have no chance) and have much better endurance (nuclear propulsion). Plus they can deploy Seal teams.
Originally posted by Observer83
Unmanned 500 missile ships sailing on the coastline, thats scary. Really i doubt they could risk such ships to be unmanned, think about jamming those if remote controlled or even taking over whole command and none in ship to stop it, as its mission is to move alone without fleet as support?
I agree the fact that US should look more cost effient ways, but unmanned ships doesnt sound safe, unmanned planes are little different story. Little risky anyway in the end to have 500 missile stores sailing all over. But as manned ship it would add new standard for destroyer, and as its been mostly ships are supporting from sea the ground forces, so why not have ship that is all for it.
Originally posted by COWlan
Un-necessary unless you get a WWII kind of war again.