It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US Navy Wouldn't Last a Week in WW3

page: 1
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+5 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:20 PM
link   
I just read some interesting information about the imbalances of Naval forces around the world and how Russia and China have managed to counter the balance back in its favour. The US has a dozen or so Carriers and no country in the world can match its power on the seas and oceans of the world, however when it comes to under water the Russians have Subs that carry the Sunburn missiles which are "Carrier Killers" and a retired Naval Officer quoted that the US Navy would suffer defeat in a very short time.

russia-insider.com...

Not to mention the incident last year when Russia unveiled its new Khibiny Jammer which crippled the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea with 27 crew members asking to be dismissed a week later.



+35 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   
Neither will anyone else ... everyone can bend over and kiss their arse goodbye when it starts ..



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:26 PM
link   
The west needs to increases it defence budget three fold.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:29 PM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth


US Navy Wouldn't Last a Week in WW3

Unless those carriers can fly, submerge or cloak… I agree.

Like shooting at beer cans floating on a pond.


+21 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
NAH, we have black TRIANGLES that will handle ALL that.


+52 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:30 PM
link   
So you read an article from Russia insider and it said russia would sink the U.S. navy in a week....
Let that sink in a minute. Pardon the pun.

Can't wait to hear what North Korea weekly has to say about it..


+30 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:32 PM
link   
The US has nearly as many subs as Russia and China combined. The difference is our subs have the technological advantage.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Expat888
Neither will anyone else ... everyone can bend over and kiss their arse goodbye when it starts ..


An article from Russia Insider would never be biased in favor of Russia.

I mean hell they quote an Admiral from the 70s then they use this line " so one wonders why the U.S. Navy still adheres to the doctrine “the bigger the better” and continues to rely on an armada of aircraft carriers and large battleships." which is great considering their hasn't been an active battleship in the US navy since 2005 or 2006.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Hoosierdaddy71
So you read an article from Russia insider and it said russia would sink the U.S. navy in a week....
Let that sink in a minute. Pardon the pun.

Can't wait to hear what North Korea weekly has to say about it..


Russians navy is pathetic, north Korea could do it in an afternon


+7 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:37 PM
link   
Land, sea, or air...nobody wants to go toe to toe with the stars and stripes. The only way to defeat the empire is to kick them in the pocket book.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Just one of the many weapons the US has to counter the subs:

The Boeing P-8 Poseidon



The P-8 conducts anti-submarine warfare (ASW), anti-surface warfare (ASUW), and shipping interdiction, along with an electronic signals intelligence (ELINT) role. This involves carrying torpedoes, depth charges, SLAM-ER missiles, Harpoon anti-ship missiles, and other weapons. It is able to drop and monitor sonobuoys.



en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: opethPA

originally posted by: Expat888
Neither will anyone else ... everyone can bend over and kiss their arse goodbye when it starts ..


An article from Russia Insider would never be biased in favor of Russia.

I mean hell they quote an Admiral from the 70s then they use this line " so one wonders why the U.S. Navy still adheres to the doctrine “the bigger the better” and continues to rely on an armada of aircraft carriers and large battleships." which is great considering their hasn't been an active battleship in the US navy since 2005 or 2006.


Don't forget, there were none before the first gulf war, they just brought a couple out of retirement for a brief one last dance.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
Don't forget, there were none before the first gulf war, they just brought a couple out of retirement for a brief one last dance.


Come on , don't be silly with facts.
Russia-Insider disagrees with your facts and they have a neutral and unbiased view of the scenario.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:49 PM
link   
If it is WWIII the US Navy will have no problem using Low Frequency Active Sonar, or LFA -- a new extended-range submarine-detection system . It is harmful to marine life, but if it's WWIII you know they will deploy it.


+6 more 
posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: NotMoose
If it is WWIII the US Navy will have no problem using Low Frequency Active Sonar, or LFA -- a new extended-range submarine-detection system . It is harmful to marine life, but if it's WWIII you know they will deploy it.


If WWIII breaks out, all sides will break out toys we haven't seen or heard of yet.

Let's just hope that it never happens.
edit on 4/2/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

Too bad the new jammer is a self defense system, completely incapable of crippling any ship, of any type.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
Was listening to John Bachelor a week or two ago. Had two Naval warfare experts on that were basically trying to say the same thing. However, to me, it was pretty clear we have a huge advantage over any other nation or combination of nations. Our fleet is exponentially larger than both China and Russia combined. To me it sounded like they were shilling for more naval expenditures. Guess some admiral needs a new Mercedes or something.



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Yep, keep telling yourself that link,



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

USA
473 craft
20 Aircraft carriers
62 Destroyers
55 Submarines

China
673 craft
1 Aircraft carrier
47 Frigates
25 Destroyers
67 Submarines

Russia
352 craft
4 Frigate
12 Destroyer
1 Aircraft carrier
55 submarines.

In terms of numbers the US has supremacy in surface craft but the submarine fleets are similar numbers,the stand out of course is 20 AIRCRAFT CARRIERS.There are only 2 real models in recent history to give any guide in World War 2 torpedos and mines sunk many ships,direct ship to ship contact however wasn't that common in the decisive battles of the Coral Sea,Midway and Pearl Harbour it was mostly carrier based aircraft that did the damage more recently in the Falklands it was again airpower that did most of the damage however submarines sank ships as well.I think its a given that the US navy can pick up surface combatants far enough away to not let them close enough to be a problem if they choose too,so the question is how good are their submarines and how good is the US navy at anti-submarine warfare which hasn't been tested for quite some time, but I would think that with all the layers of protection around a carrier it was be easier said than done to attack one.
edit on 2-4-2015 by khnum because: boo boo



posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

Its hard not to think that Russia isn't really hurting and desperate by all the recent pro Russian and Putin propaganda as of recent that I have noticed? Then add that Putin disappearance debacle to the equation and I have a hard time picturing a rosy picture for Russia?

It seems to me that the ones to worry about are the quite giants and never the loud mouth ones: Castro,Chavez, and Sadam come to mind of some the loud voices with not much to back it up with.

Personally I would be more worried about WHY walmart is spending 250 BILLION DOLLARS over 10 years to bring jobs back to the US than Russians having the money and non corrupt power structure in place to be a military threat.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join