Interested Amateur

MALD The DARPA, the Navy, and Air Force are currently funding the Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) Weapon Development program.  This intends to replace the decades-old Harpoon Anti-Ship Missle (AShM) on Navy warships with a new weapon, and develop an air-launched variant for Air Force bombers, as well as Navy and Air Force tactical aircraft. The candidate weapons include an anti-ship variant of the time-tested Tomahawk.  An anti-ship version of the USAF JASSM missile (LRASM). And the Konsgberg JSM/NSM. Konsgberg NSM and JSM All have pros and cons, and ultimately a mix may be the most appropriate. All of these share one thing in common, they are meant to kill relatively large warships. Warhead weight: Tomahawk - 450kg blast-frag LRASM - 450kg penetrating blast-frag NSM/JSM - 125kg blast-frag For comparison: Exocet - 165kg blast-frag Harpoon - 221kg blast-frag However, most warships we will face are not  very large.  The Chinese Navy (PLAN) and Chinese

M1A2 SEPv3 In the previous Pimp My IBCT, I suggested using a combination of refurbished M-ATVs to achieve full vehicular mobility for some IBCTs.  This would give them a degree of tactical and operational mobility near that of the Stryker BCTs.   They would suffer off-road, in comparison to the SBCT, but would be at least as mobile on roads, with lower logistics overhead. However both SBCTs and mounted IBCTs are still severely hamstrung if used offensively.  The Stryker ICV is protected against 14.5mm HMGs organically, and partially protected against RPG-7s with slat armor.   It is not protected against heavier RPGs (e.g. RPG-29) or any ATGMs. M-ATV is protected against 7.62mm rounds only.  So even this guy would ruin its day. Source: Wikipedia Aggressive, offensive use of either BCT type against foes with anti-armor systems, or in built-up areas, would likely result in heavy casualties.  Both BCT types will be stuck either dismounting prematurely, whenever enemy re