You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: WoT
BMD fleet plans Europe defense mission
2009-09-29
Hat tip to Galrahn at Information Dissemination.
The Navy's new mission of protecting Europe from ballistic-missile attacks has widespread implications for the surface fleet, potentially affecting everything from deployment schedules to crewing arrangements to command-and-control procedures for cruisers and destroyers.

Ballistic-missile defense warships have become the keystone in a new national strategy to shield European allies from potential attacks by Iran. Rather than field sensors and missiles on the ground in Poland and the Czech Republic, the U.S. will first maintain a presence of at least two or three Aegis BMD ships in the waters around Europe, starting in 2011.

That announcement -- which defined a new mission for the surface force: continent defense -- immediately raised many questions that Navy planners must answer over the next two years:
Posted by:Steve White

#12  WMF > MEDVEDEV: RUSSIA NEEDS AT LEAST TEN YEARS TO REBUILD ITS NAVY [Goal> 70% moderniz by Year 2020].
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-09-29 21:34  

#11  oops,meant "congrats procopius"
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-29 12:05  

#10  well congrats Para, but I havent seen that concern expressed regarding the land based BDM elsewhere.

I have different POV about the cold war era. Since 1992, the US presence in Germany, it could be argued was as much about having a launching pad for actions in the mideast as anything else. Anyway, with Russia on the rise, Im not sure this is the ideal time to pull out. I do want to see more euro commitment in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and elsewhere though.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-29 12:05  

#9  Gee, I've been pointing out that massive military welfare that's been in existence since the early 70s when Western Europe attained a combined population and GDP equal to that of the US. All we got were excuses and kept footing the bill. When the Wall went down there was no reason to keep anyone there. Something about entangling alliances. Now with a financial Mount Pinatubo [which was finally the last card to get us out of the Philippines}, maybe we can pull way back. In the words of the Emperor Honorius to the citizens of Roman Britannia, see to your own defense.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-09-29 11:48  

#8  somehow charging the Euros for freeriding wasn't as big a concern when we were putting in a land based BMD, now was it?
Posted by: liberalhawk   2009-09-29 11:16  

#7  Once again 0bama has no plan.
Posted by: Parabellum   2009-09-29 08:57  

#6  BP, that's a point for the next US president to press because the current one certainly won't. Bambi doesn't even believe in missile defense and the shield isn't really going to be operational before 2012 or so. So the 45th president is going to have to lay the tab for this in front of the EU, or else the ships sail home.
Posted by: Steve White   2009-09-29 07:44  

#5  No assistance please from Admiral Mullin or General Jones.

"The enemy is not the Russians, the enemy is the US Navy!"
General Curtis E. LeMay
Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland   2009-09-29 07:15  

#4  > The {US} Navy's new mission of protecting Europe from ballistic-missile attacks has widespread implications for the surface fleet, potentially affecting everything from deployment schedules to crewing arrangements to command-and-control procedures for cruisers and destroyers.

Shouldn't you know Europe be paying for this???

A defensive subsidy is as damaging as any other.
Posted by: Bright Pebbles   2009-09-29 06:17  

#3  The Cold War OFFENSIVE Strategic Triad is now the DEFENSIVE TRIAD.

Should prove intewesting, as the PLAN is repor considering dev OFFENSIVE ARSENAL/FIRE-SHIPS equipped wid multiple VLS, among other, + as part of their anti-USN, anti- Aircraft Carrier strategy - WILL THE USN ON ITS PART DEV "DEFENSIVE" ARSENAL/FIRE-SHIPS???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-09-29 02:15  

#2  apogee of about 500 miles = about 500 km.
Good night all.
Posted by: ed   2009-09-29 02:13  

#1  So an Iranian missile that is capable of hitting Central Europe (about 2000 miles) would have an apogee of about 500 miles. The SM-3 satellite shoot down occurred at an altitude of 150 miles with the ship preplaced at a highly advantageous location. This is going to work.
Posted by: ed   2009-09-29 00:58  

00:00