Reply to thread

Message

Ugh, they're making this really confusing (as usual)

So, we have the following:

OASuW Increment 1: air-launched LRASM (in early procurement)
OASwW increment 2: air-launched anti-ship missile (to be determined)
NGLAW: sub-/surface-launched Tomahawk replacement, with both land attack and "maritime threats" capability. (also to be determined , probably not the same airframe or propulsion as OASuW Inc. 2.)

There's a striking lack of the phrase "anti-ship" in the NGLAW description (especially considering that they do use the term explicitly in the discussion of OASuW). The "maritime threat" wording they've used instead leaves room for NGLAW to be usable against ships in port and against anti-access threats like shore-based SSM batteries without being able to actually attack ships at sea. And earlier they say "NGLAW to initially complement, and then replace, current land attack cruise missile weapon systems."

I'm not getting warm fuzzies about the prospects for NGLAW to include an actual at-sea anti-ship capability here.

<blockquote data-quote="TomS" data-source="post: 310995" data-attributes="member: 1484">Ugh, they're making this really confusing (as usual)So, we have the following:OASuW Increment 1: air-launched LRASM (in early procurement)OASwW increment 2: air-launched anti-ship missile (to be determined)NGLAW: sub-/surface-launched Tomahawk replacement, with both land attack and &quot;maritime threats&quot;&nbsp; capability.&nbsp; (also to be determined , probably not the same airframe or propulsion as OASuW Inc. 2.)There's a striking lack of the phrase &quot;anti-ship&quot; in the NGLAW description (especially considering that they do use the term explicitly in the discussion of OASuW).&nbsp; The &quot;maritime threat&quot; wording they've used instead leaves room for NGLAW to be usable against ships in port and against anti-access threats like shore-based SSM batteries without being able to actually attack ships at sea.&nbsp; And earlier they say &quot;NGLAW to initially complement, and then replace, current land attack cruise missile weapon systems.&quot;&nbsp; I'm not getting warm fuzzies about the prospects for NGLAW to include an actual at-sea anti-ship capability here.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TomS, post: 310995, member: 1484"] Ugh, they're making this really confusing (as usual) So, we have the following: OASuW Increment 1: air-launched LRASM (in early procurement) OASwW increment 2: air-launched anti-ship missile (to be determined) NGLAW: sub-/surface-launched Tomahawk replacement, with both land attack and "maritime threats" capability. (also to be determined , probably not the same airframe or propulsion as OASuW Inc. 2.) There's a striking lack of the phrase "anti-ship" in the NGLAW description (especially considering that they do use the term explicitly in the discussion of OASuW). The "maritime threat" wording they've used instead leaves room for NGLAW to be usable against ships in port and against anti-access threats like shore-based SSM batteries without being able to actually attack ships at sea. And earlier they say "NGLAW to initially complement, and then replace, current [b]land attack[/b] cruise missile weapon systems." I'm not getting warm fuzzies about the prospects for NGLAW to include an actual at-sea anti-ship capability here. [/QUOTE]

Verification