Aegis and SAM missiles will protect cities to free up US Navy

The US Navy does not want to use ships to patrol and protect cities. They want all cities to have their own onshore Aegis systems.

Above – An Aegis Ashore command centers are an Aegis warship’s bridge transplanted to land.

The US Navy wants Aegis cruisers and destroyers loaded with Tomahawk cruise missiles or LRASM anti-ship missiles instead of a preponderance of defensive SM-3 anti-ballistic missile interceptors.

Japan issued a $2 billion request for two ground-based Aegis Ashore radar missile tracking stations built by Lockheed Martin. The anti-missile protection will be completed around 2025. Romania and Poland are the only other countries to have built the ground-based system.

The US Navy has repeatedly called for growing the fleet from 286 ships today to a 355-ship fleet.

China has loaded up its man-made islands in the South China Sea with surface to air missiles and anti-ship missiles.

44 thoughts on “Aegis and SAM missiles will protect cities to free up US Navy”

  1. How convenient for Lockheed Martin that The US Navy wants all cities to have their own onshore Aegis systems! One of those happy coincidnces that are bankrupting out once proud country. And BTW, the Aegis systems would be lucky to intercept one fifth of Chinese or Russian missiles.

    Reply
  2. Hi Sir Edward,
    I have not been beknighted by the Queen (so far) so you can call me Luca if you like, no need to call me as “Sir”.
    And thank you about the moral lesson about how to write in the internet.
    Cavalier use of words has nothing to do with ideas and a lot to do with grammar.
    You can write sensible things using a bad grammar and viceversa, moreover in case you did not notice , I am not native English, please tell me how it is your Italian before criticizing my English . As for your comment “you know nothing about Western History” please tell me exactly where I am wrong without throwing random accusations like that . Maybe it is me who does not know history or maybe it is you that you are part of the so-called “stoopid majority ” as you believe what you believe just as you have been taught this in school? And you cant think with your head?

    Luca Mazza (R)

    Reply
  3. And your own life is worth much much much much less than President Xi`s . This is why you can only please yourself alone in the bed at night in the only way you can do with wet dreams about “destroying the sovregnity of China” but you will not be able to accomplish that in reality as it takes toesticles to start a nuclear war and neither you nor the orange baboon have enough of them, capisc? probably not. why do I even lose my time..

    Reply
  4. No idiot, they won’t. Xi has the same problem Putin does — his “colleagues” know they can’t enjoy their loot if they are ash.

    So they won’t let that nuclear retaliation happen. What’s in it for them otherwise?

    Reply
  5. In 1970 we called our invasion of Cambodia an “incursion”. In 71 we sent South Vietnamese troops into Laos… with our “support”. Call it what you will. We were there, on the ground, and bombing the bejesus out of them in both cases. I call it invasion. And don’t forget Panama in 89-90.

    Reply
  6. Let alone the question if South Vietnam really invited the US or if it was the US who forced South Vietnam to “invite” the US, if you commit atrocities during the war, people should be sent in jail , for life if necessary, if you really cares about human rights
    Guess what.
    But since many people, you included, are coward hypocrites this is not the case.
    I mean, the only difference between many americans and the Nazzis is that the Nazzis at least had the balls.

    Reply
  7. Try to do that and China will drop a tiny but well constructed nuke over your little head with one of their ICBMs and your plans for deaths will end , along with your usel ess life..

    Just saying, chicken hawk..

    Reply
  8. Great
    Now that you have finished your spelling class or however it is called try to think a bout the dead people mortard!
    Gee.. What a bunch of *beep* here

    Reply
  9. Let alone that 1990 and 2003 are two different dates

    Invaded Iraq “only” once?
    Are you an hidiot or what?

    200,000 people dead means nothing for you?
    A case could be made that cowtards like you who say “we invaded *only* once” should be shot in the head right there for disrespect and white wash of war crimes.

    Luca Mazza(R)

    Reply
  10. Grenada, not Granada.

    One could add to the list the countries that were bullied with cruise missiles, such as Sudan where the U.S.Navy blew up a fertilizer factory. You also forgot Yugoslavia (Kosovo).

    Reply
  11. Having a war you should have is not a backfire. The sovereignty of China should be destroyed if it will not live peaceably in the world.

    And so far, it has announced its intentions not to do so.

    Reply
  12. ” where do you put them so they have clear views of the horizon ” <– I may be way out on a limb here, but I’ll go with, a) anyplace high enough b) anyplace with a view of the sector of horizon in question. These don’t even have to be the same place.

    ” How do you prevent urban clutter from creating blind spots in the future? ” <– Eminent domain for a constitutionally permitted government activity, no building higher than X along this tract.

    ” Maybe it would … the EEC too. ” <– Maybe something like all that will be done.

    Reply
  13. Ignoring the political comments in the thread – my concern is position for the phased arrays, where do you put them so they have clear views of the horizon? How do you prevent urban clutter from creating blind spots in the future? Are we looking at a wall of stations on the border, or point defense, i.e. does Denver get a facility too or do we place one in the redwoods to cover potential flight paths? Maybe it would be better to build a 370 ship navy and have coastal missile defense ships, rather than wasting a modern cruiser. They could do slow doughnuts in the water towing a strategic sonar array too and look for subs in the EEC too.

    Reply
  14. Bolton tough and smart???????????
    You mean chicken hawk bolton?

    Do me a favour , kid, and google “chicken hawk bolton”
    Idhiot

    Reply
  15. How many countries?

    Let me check, you frikkin mohrontard..

    Let me see if I do this off the top of my head:

    1) the us invaded North Korea (at the request of South Korea),
    2–4) invaded Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos
    4–5) invaded Iraq twice,
    6) Afghanistan, and oh, yeah,
    7) in 1983 invaded Granada,
    8) invaded Cuba quite unsuccessfully.

    And then there all the African countries that we ‘semi-invaded’ — under the guise of training and equipping (w/ lots of US boots on the ground): Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia – not to mention operations in Libya, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, Djibouti — that’s, let’s see: a total of 23 and I’m sure I left some out.

    All countries that could not ddefend themselves, at least Nazis invaded the USSR, they had balls
    Differently from fat marines

    Idhiot

    As I was saying ..

    Luca Mazza

    Reply
  16. I would say China is getting it’s hands slammed in the cookie jar they are stealing from, and they are complaining about it. Bolton is tough and smart. Your assessment of him is what you read in the headlines. Nobody wants war or conflict, but the totalitarians in China have to change.

    Reply
  17. China is the bad actor here but Boltan’s approach to everything is to escalate the situation and someday that’s going to backfire in a big way. By the way, please remember that the strategy of engaging with China came straight from the Republican Nixon Administration.

    Reply
  18. Yeah, Bolton. It’s all Americas fault, isn’t it. China has nothing to do with it….at all. China expands at the first sight of power projection it has, and the U.S. has taken over how many countries since WWII? The U.S. could have crushed China at any time up to now, but we didn’t. China acts like a total dick to the rest of the world, and it’s America’s fault.

    Reply
  19. Hi Sir Edward,
    I have not been beknighted by the Queen (so far) so you can call me Luca if you like, no need to call me as “Sir”.
    And thank you about the moral lesson about how to write in the internet.
    Cavalier use of words has nothing to do with ideas and a lot to do with grammar.
    You can write sensible things using a bad grammar and viceversa, moreover in case you did not notice , I am not native English, please tell me how it is your Italian before criticizing my English . As for your comment “you know nothing about Western History” please tell me exactly where I am wrong without throwing random accusations like that . Maybe it is me who does not know history or maybe it is you that you are part of the so-called “stoopid majority ” as you believe what you believe just as you have been taught this in school? And you cant think with your head?

    Luca Mazza (R)

    Reply
  20. And your own life is worth much much much much less than President Xi`s . This is why you can only please yourself alone in the bed at night in the only way you can do with wet dreams about “destroying the sovregnity of China” but you will not be able to accomplish that in reality as it takes toesticles to start a nuclear war and neither you nor the orange baboon have enough of them, capisc? probably not. why do I even lose my time..

    Reply
  21. No idiot, they won’t. Xi has the same problem Putin does — his “colleagues” know they can’t enjoy their loot if they are ash.

    So they won’t let that nuclear retaliation happen. What’s in it for them otherwise?

    Reply
  22. In 1970 we called our invasion of Cambodia an “incursion”. In 71 we sent South Vietnamese troops into Laos… with our “support”. Call it what you will. We were there, on the ground, and bombing the bejesus out of them in both cases. I call it invasion. And don’t forget Panama in 89-90.

    Reply
  23. Let alone the question if South Vietnam really invited the US or if it was the US who forced South Vietnam to “invite” the US, if you commit atrocities during the war, people should be sent in jail , for life if necessary, if you really cares about human rights
    Guess what.
    But since many people, you included, are coward hypocrites this is not the case.
    I mean, the only difference between many americans and the Nazzis is that the Nazzis at least had the balls.

    Reply
  24. Try to do that and China will drop a tiny but well constructed nuke over your little head with one of their ICBMs and your plans for deaths will end , along with your usel ess life..

    Just saying, chicken hawk..

    Reply
  25. Let alone that 1990 and 2003 are two different dates

    Invaded Iraq “only” once?
    Are you an hidiot or what?

    200,000 people dead means nothing for you?
    A case could be made that cowtards like you who say “we invaded *only* once” should be shot in the head right there for disrespect and white wash of war crimes.

    Luca Mazza(R)

    Reply
  26. Grenada, not Granada.

    One could add to the list the countries that were bullied with cruise missiles, such as Sudan where the U.S.Navy blew up a fertilizer factory. You also forgot Yugoslavia (Kosovo).

    Reply
  27. Having a war you should have is not a backfire. The sovereignty of China should be destroyed if it will not live peaceably in the world.

    And so far, it has announced its intentions not to do so.

    Reply
  28. ” where do you put them so they have clear views of the horizon ” <-- I may be way out on a limb here, but I'll go with, a) anyplace high enough b) anyplace with a view of the sector of horizon in question. These don't even have to be the same place. " How do you prevent urban clutter from creating blind spots in the future? " <-- Eminent domain for a constitutionally permitted government activity, no building higher than X along this tract. " Maybe it would ... the EEC too. " <-- Maybe something like all that will be done.

    Reply
  29. Ignoring the political comments in the thread – my concern is position for the phased arrays, where do you put them so they have clear views of the horizon? How do you prevent urban clutter from creating blind spots in the future? Are we looking at a wall of stations on the border, or point defense, i.e. does Denver get a facility too or do we place one in the redwoods to cover potential flight paths? Maybe it would be better to build a 370 ship navy and have coastal missile defense ships, rather than wasting a modern cruiser. They could do slow doughnuts in the water towing a strategic sonar array too and look for subs in the EEC too.

    Reply
  30. How many countries?

    Let me check, you frikkin mohrontard..

    Let me see if I do this off the top of my head:

    1) the us invaded North Korea (at the request of South Korea),
    2–4) invaded Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos
    4–5) invaded Iraq twice,
    6) Afghanistan, and oh, yeah,
    7) in 1983 invaded Granada,
    8) invaded Cuba quite unsuccessfully.

    And then there all the African countries that we ‘semi-invaded’ — under the guise of training and equipping (w/ lots of US boots on the ground): Algeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania, Morocco, Niger, Nigeria, Senegal and Tunisia – not to mention operations in Libya, Somalia, Uganda, Kenya, Djibouti — that’s, let’s see: a total of 23 and I’m sure I left some out.

    All countries that could not ddefend themselves, at least Nazis invaded the USSR, they had balls
    Differently from fat marines

    Idhiot

    As I was saying ..

    Luca Mazza

    Reply
  31. I would say China is getting it’s hands slammed in the cookie jar they are stealing from, and they are complaining about it. Bolton is tough and smart. Your assessment of him is what you read in the headlines. Nobody wants war or conflict, but the totalitarians in China have to change.

    Reply
  32. China is the bad actor here but Boltan’s approach to everything is to escalate the situation and someday that’s going to backfire in a big way. By the way, please remember that the strategy of engaging with China came straight from the Republican Nixon Administration.

    Reply
  33. Yeah, Bolton. It’s all Americas fault, isn’t it. China has nothing to do with it….at all. China expands at the first sight of power projection it has, and the U.S. has taken over how many countries since WWII? The U.S. could have crushed China at any time up to now, but we didn’t. China acts like a total dick to the rest of the world, and it’s America’s fault.

    Reply

Leave a Comment