Title: Naval (Shore) Defense
Description: missile batteries, etc.
israeli - March 11, 2008 09:22 AM (GMT)
how about having some of these to protect ourselves against hostile vessels?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6mwx50XYXwE:armywink:
MSantor - March 12, 2008 12:51 AM (GMT)
These would certainly cost less than having a warship armed with Harpoons. However, the fact that the RP is an archipelago nation limits the mobility of the truck launchers.
sgtbilko - March 12, 2008 03:16 AM (GMT)
I think we can transports those trucks by ro-ro! :specool:
Tora^2 - March 12, 2008 08:54 AM (GMT)
What if we use ASMs that can be airlifted by Huey or even be transported on small boats or smaller vehicles?
Well, those wily pests we call Hezbollah got away with it and made an ass out of Israel.
Zero wing - April 29, 2008 11:41 AM (GMT)
Ok rin pero i think sa Army yan or sa Naval base defense for base defense siguro and dapat sa Aircraft rin tama so i think its nice we can deploy it anyware in the field but still it depens on what missiles Harpon or Russian missiles or swed missiles or Euro Missiles like brit or French or German? :patrioticpinoy:
Marschall - June 19, 2009 01:16 PM (GMT)
So, we now know - for sure - that our "friendly" (sarcasm, yes) Chinese neighbours are patrolling within our territorial waters since they think the area is theirs.
Apparently, arming vintage warships would still be risky since they - if things go from bad to worse - can easily be sunk with Chinese torpedoes.
So, I suggest mobile land-based platforms (safe from torpedoes) that would at least offer some key points a bit of defense against surface vessels:
RBS15
Naval Strike MissileGabriel Missileand the rather expensive, but deadly:
BrahMos
C.C. - June 19, 2009 11:26 PM (GMT)
I suggest this one, relatively cheaper than the others, yet deadly.
Tunguska-M1
TunguskaIt can destroy Naval Aircraft, enemy fighters, and even Cruise missiles from Chinese Naval ships.
Marschall - June 20, 2009 01:05 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (C.C. @ Jun 20 2009, 07:26 AM) |
I suggest this one, relatively cheaper than the others, yet deadly.
Tunguska-M1

Tunguska
It can destroy Naval Aircraft, enemy fighters, and even Cruise missiles from Chinese Naval ships. |
There is one problem:
it offers no defense against naval vessels.
Actually a mixture of both would be good...
Cheaper than acquiring a huge frigate
Zero wing - June 22, 2009 06:41 PM (GMT)
Why not both? both anti cannon and that new naval missile for maximum defense
eagle1 - June 23, 2009 05:36 PM (GMT)
You need to locate the target first. Detect them beyond the range of your weapons, beyond the range of his weapons. Hiding one's location is a primary tactic in surface warfare. If he knows you can find him, chances are high he will stay away.
C.C. - June 24, 2009 09:20 AM (GMT)
Enemy ships? A combination of Tunguska for Air Defense and this! :fire:


E2 yung 2 variants na kakailanganin po natin for Naval Defense.
M26A1 (range, 45 km) and the M26A2, dun sa cost, mahal siya sure, pero ang layo naman ng presyo nito kaysa Frigates. Deadly talaga 2.
C.C. - June 24, 2009 09:28 AM (GMT)
Meron pa mga sirs.
M30 Guided MLRS (GMLRS), nasa 60 kms ang range niya.
eagle1 - June 24, 2009 11:00 PM (GMT)
These are delivery systems. You need an "ACQUISITION, IDENTIFICATION AND TARGETING" system first.
Capt.Cody - June 25, 2009 07:06 AM (GMT)
just put that tunguska in our ship then there you have it anti-ship missiles,haha,
C.C. - June 26, 2009 12:00 AM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Marschall @ Jun 19 2009, 09:16 PM) |
RBS15
|
Astig to a, may variant siya na ang range ay 200km! Wow! :fire:
C.C. - July 1, 2009 11:49 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (eagle1 @ Jun 24 2009, 01:36 AM) |
| You need to locate the target first. Detect them beyond the range of your weapons, beyond the range of his weapons. Hiding one's location is a primary tactic in surface warfare. If he knows you can find him, chances are high he will stay away. |
That is the point. ^^ To make them stay away from this strategic areas. Kung hindi man, dahil e2 yung objective nila, make them pay!
Kreuzfahrer - August 6, 2009 09:45 AM (GMT)
Against ships, an aircraft with long range anti-ship missile is the most feasible choice
C.C. - August 7, 2009 12:02 PM (GMT)
That is the problem, we don't have anything yet capable enough to launch and hit enemy ships. Mapa MRF, combat helo, yung pinost ni Marschall or mga at least corvette na may kakayahang tumira ng anti-ship missile, wala pa. Sana ang mga problemang ito ay masolusyunan bago mahuli ang lahat.
Zero wing - August 10, 2009 12:32 PM (GMT)
well a good naval defense is combo of all the 4 service of the afp and their sub units and independent units and civil units like fast acting on land forces and fast deployment of air forces and naval units to intercept enemy force from reaching the mainland but the elements should be present technology and equipment, Intelligence, and training for any from of warfare thats our problem specially technology and equipment and add one doctrine we don't even know what doctrine should follow that our main problem that my own position on the matter