Check out this article from Navy Times:

[magi]

I believe this is a very interesting and somewhat disconcerting naval AAW tactical notion being proposed.....
I think CMANO is a good platform to see if this is feasible.... if i was sharper guy i would design some scenarios around this proposal...

? Are a reduced number of long range SAM's able enough to prosecute with success ASM shooters before launch...
? Are a greatly increased number RIM's able to defeat salvos of incoming ASM's in a thirty plus NM prosecution envelope... defense and attrition in depth will be greatly reduced..... kind of scarry really....

What say you....

Check out this article from Navy Times:
http://militari.ly/1qQ3T5O

Why send an SM-6 missile to do a RIM-162 Sea Sparrow's job?
That's the principle behind a radical new strategy proposed by an influential D.C. think tank. If implemented, it would change the way the surface fleet fights by extending the ships' kill zone with longer-range missiles and new technologies.
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments report calls for surface combatants to use long-range missiles to shoot down aircraft and bombers before they are close enough to fire at the surface group, while concentrating air defenses on the zone within 30 miles of the ship or carrier strike group.
That's a big break from the current air defense strategy, which focuses on shooting down anything coming at the ship from as far as way as possible. If a missile comes at a ship today, the ship would fire the long-range SM-6 first, followed by the medium range SM-2. Sea Sparrows would be fired as a last resort.
Bryan Clark, a retired U.S. Navy commander and the study's author, argues the current shoot-often strategy is a waste of the Navy's big-ticket missiles and won't serve the Navy well against a foe such as China, whose ship-killing missiles reach beyond 1,000 nautical miles.
Clark argues that an advanced adversary could shoot flurries of missiles at a ship and force a destroyer or cruiser to empty its vertical launch magazines in a hurry, leaving the group undefended.
"I recommend going to one air defense layer that would begin at 30 nautical miles, and the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile would be the primary air defense weapon," Clark said Monday during a brief to defense writers.
Waiting to shoot down an incoming missile until it's 30 nautical miles out means that on a clear day it could be seen by anyone standing on the bridge wing before the ship takes its first crack at shooting it down. But Clark says the new variant of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow, known as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, is up to the task of becoming the Navy's go-to air defense weapon. That missile comes with the added bonus that you can pack four in each vertical launching system cell, meaning ships won't run out of them as quickly.
"Certainly the pucker factor is a lot higher," he acknowledged.
The concept Clark proposes, called "offensive sea control," takes the Navy off defense and on the offense through more advanced weaponry. The new missiles coming online, such as the SM-6, which ranges out to 130 miles, should be used to eliminate incoming threats at longer ranges before they can fire their anti-ship missiles.
"The Navy has to start thinking about the SM-6 as an offensive, not a defensive weapon," Clark said. "Shooting a cruise missile at 100 nautical miles is kind of silly when you look at the numbers. But shooting a bomber with an SM-6 makes a lot more sense."
Bringing the air defense window back to 30 nautical miles will also allow ships to take advantage of new technologies such as lasers and the electromagnetic rail gun, which would give the group multiple close-in options for killing the "vampire."
Clark also suggests that the railgun be mounted on the joint high-speed vessel and sent out with surface groups.
The principle of expanding the battle space to put the Navy's big payloads on offense also applies to anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare.
For submarines, Clark recommends developing a long-range anti-submarine missile that can hit subs further away. Even if the targeting data is sketchy at 100 nautical miles, the sub will still be forced to maneuver and take it out of the fight if an anti-submarine missile is in the water.
On the surface side, Clark recommends discontinuing the Tomahawk cruise missile and creating a weapon that can equally function as a strike and anti-ship missile, which would give the ship greater offensive range than the Harpoon missile provides and save space in the VLS launcher by having the same missile do two jobs.
Clark plans to brief his findings on Capitol Hill in the coming days, and has already briefed the chief of naval operations on the ideas, he said.

[hellfish6]

I love ESSMs. In Command, anyways. IRL I'd probably wanna shoot things as far away as possible too.

[trismidt]

I would like to see someone do a command scenario where we use a DDG with SM-6s as a silent sam up threat axis, like the idea with the old CGNs in the '80s.

[batek688]

These defense contractors need to think outside of the box. A swarm of drone boats around ships each with a baby CIWS on it. Swarm of airborne drones acting as reactive armor either detonating on impact or proximity.

Reactive armor, torpedo netting, barrage balloons...old idea which could merge with modern drone tech.