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: 13
25
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 11:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: DeadSeraph

originally posted by: neformore
a reply to: Answer

I do so humbly apologise for upsetting your delicate sensibilites.

Its just that we live in the real world. Not a fantasy where someone or something is invincible.



I don't think anyone is calling the U.S Navy "invincible". Claiming the Russians could sink the entire U.S fleet in a week however, is laughable.


In a modern naval war, all surface ships are very vulnerable to torpedoes and missiles. Russia has capable submarines and missiles. US has significantly more capable submarines, equal missiles, and more capable and deployable aircraft to launch missiles and to attack an opponent's missile launchers.

The Russians could sink the U.S. fleet in a week if the U.S. didn't fight back. The U.S. could sink the Russian fleet in a week even if Russia did fight back. After all, how hard is it for Russia to attack Norfolk without a ICBM? How hard is it for U.S. to attack Sevastopol? What happens when U.S. lines the output of the Bosporus with 10 attack submarines?




edit on 6-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: victor7
a reply to: Zaphod58

For some reason, I do not believe in Submarine warfare. They are too big and too slow moving.


They're slow compared to aircraft. Nuclear subs are fast compared to almost all surface vessels.


Also the technology has gotten too advanced for the subs to evade detection and tracking. Although this might also be a reverse statement meaning Subs have gotten too clever to evade detection technology etc.


Other way around. Advantages of subs over detection capability has increased. There is always some absolute physical level of background noise. If your sub's noise goes substantially below this level, and they are there now, the sub won't be detected.

The ocean is a big place. With a modern sub you can launch a highly capable low-observable torpedo from 20km away from the target, it takes an hour to get there, is a 1-shot kill, and by that time you are 20-30 km further away still. The ocean is a very very big place to look for a quiet hole in the water.

edit on 6-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-4-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:17 AM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Speaking of highly capable torpedoes. What if the US Navy is also an expert in Drone Warfare and I aint talking about aircraft.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: mbkennel

Speaking of highly capable torpedoes. What if the US Navy is also an expert in Drone Warfare and I aint talking about aircraft.





Ahh drone torpedoes. Sneaky sneaky.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: mbkennel

Speaking of highly capable torpedoes. What if the US Navy is also an expert in Drone Warfare and I aint talking about aircraft.





DARPA has been at it for decades. There are quite a few "concept" uuv's that went dark or were "cancelled". Here is my favorite...the MANTA.




edit on 4/7/2015 by howmuch4another because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
The US navy may not last a week.

But all other navies will also not last.

Mutual destruction.

End game zero.

3 month later the US navy may consist of USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Alabama, USS Barry, USS Batfish, USS Becuna, USS Blueback, USS Bowfin, USS Cassin Young, USS Cavalla, USS Clamagore, USS Croaker, USS Drum, USS Growler,
USS Iowa, USS Joseph P. Kennedy, Jr, USS Cavalla, USS Clamagore, USS Cobia, USS Cod, USS Little Rock,USS Massachusetts,USS Midway, USS Missouri (BB 63), USS NEW JERSEY (BB 62), USS North Carolina(BB 55), PT 617, PT 796, PT 658, USS Stewart, USS Texas, USS Turner Joy, USS Wisconsin,
www.hazegray.org...



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 01:22 PM
link   
a reply to: yuppa

More than drone torpedoes.


Howmuch4another -



both for the post and the avatar.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: ANNED

Many of the active duty subs will still be around.



posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
If nothing else the US Navy (May their strength join us) would be on the same side as the Royal/UK Commonwealth seafaring force. The Royal Navy is not large but it is very powerful and there is much more to come yet. The mighty US Navy with the the support of those who fight on the same side is a force that projects international power with much to back it up. So bring it on, meet us in the theatres, you will lose.
edit on 7-4-2015 by hotel1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: hotel1
If nothing else the US Navy (May their strength join us) would be on the same side as the Royal/UK Commonwealth seafaring force. The Royal Navy is not large but it is very powerful and there is much more to come yet. The mighty US Navy with the the support of those who fight on the same side is a force that projects international power with much to back it up. So bring it on, meet us in the theatres, you will lose.


A fairly bold statement I am quoting, I hope your Navies have more luck than your Military forces have enjoyed in Afghanistan. The British attempts at conquering Afghanistan are dismal and have been repeated over and over again with the same results Failure. The only good news is the USA is catching up to you folks in Europe:-) Just so you won't feel alone at the top.

Regards, Iwinder


edit on 8-4-2015 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: hotel1
If nothing else the US Navy (May their strength join us) would be on the same side as the Royal/UK Commonwealth seafaring force. The Royal Navy is not large but it is very powerful and there is much more to come yet. The mighty US Navy with the the support of those who fight on the same side is a force that projects international power with much to back it up. So bring it on, meet us in the theatres, you will lose.


A fairly bold statement I am quoting, I hope your Navies have more luck than your Military forces have enjoyed in Afghanistan. The British attempts at conquering Afghanistan are dismal and have been repeated over and over again with the same results Failure. The only good news is the USA is catching up to you folks in Europe:-) Just so you won't feel alone at the top.

Regards, Iwinder



COnsidering the afghan conflict was not about wiping out the taliban and just their ability to send terrorist and to change the government it wasnt a failure really. The navy does have a better track record though.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 12:36 AM
link   
Jump. Test the theory. We'll wreck your whole #ing region.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 05:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: hotel1
If nothing else the US Navy (May their strength join us) would be on the same side as the Royal/UK Commonwealth seafaring force. The Royal Navy is not large but it is very powerful and there is much more to come yet. The mighty US Navy with the the support of those who fight on the same side is a force that projects international power with much to back it up. So bring it on, meet us in the theatres, you will lose.


A fairly bold statement I am quoting, I hope your Navies have more luck than your Military forces have enjoyed in Afghanistan. The British attempts at conquering Afghanistan are dismal and have been repeated over and over again with the same results Failure. The only good news is the USA is catching up to you folks in Europe:-) Just so you won't feel alone at the top.

Regards, Iwinder



COnsidering the afghan conflict was not about wiping out the taliban and just their ability to send terrorist and to change the government it wasnt a failure really. The navy does have a better track record though.


What I am referring to is the many attempts made by the British to take Afghanistan over a period of decades and then some.


Since Afghanistan emerged as a modern state, there have been three wars with Britain. The British invasion of 1839 produced initial victory for the intruders followed by stunning defeat followed by a second victory. In 1878, the British invaded again. Though they suffered a major defeat at Maiwand, their main army beat the Afghans. The British then re-drew the frontier of British India up to the Khyber Pass, and Afghanistan had to cede various frontier areas. In the Third Anglo-Afghan war, the fighting was launched by the Afghans. Amanullah Khan sent troops into British India in 1919. Within a month they were forced to retreat, in part because British planes bombed Kabul in one of the first displays of airpower in central Asia. The war ended in tactical victory for the British but their troop losses were twice those of the Afghans, suggesting the war was a strategic defeat. The British abandoned control of Afghan foreign policy at last. The results of the three Anglo-Afghan wars undermine the claim that Afghans always defeat foreigners. What is true is that foreigners have always had a hard time occupying the country for long. The British came to understand that. From bitter experience they kept their interventions short, preferring domination over foreign affairs to the option of colonisation that they adopted in India.


The last bit says it all in my opinion, The bottom five sentences are spot on.
www.theguardian.com...

Like I mentioned earlier in this thread, watch out for the quiet guy in the corner and pay little attention to the loud mouth making threats.
Go home and stay home!
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: Iwinder

originally posted by: hotel1
If nothing else the US Navy (May their strength join us) would be on the same side as the Royal/UK Commonwealth seafaring force. The Royal Navy is not large but it is very powerful and there is much more to come yet. The mighty US Navy with the the support of those who fight on the same side is a force that projects international power with much to back it up. So bring it on, meet us in the theatres, you will lose.


A fairly bold statement I am quoting, I hope your Navies have more luck than your Military forces have enjoyed in Afghanistan. The British attempts at conquering Afghanistan are dismal and have been repeated over and over again with the same results Failure. The only good news is the USA is catching up to you folks in Europe:-) Just so you won't feel alone at the top.

Regards, Iwinder



What I find funny is someone actually stared this there apparently 2 people clueless about history. Everyone who's entered Afganistan has won. Hundreds of years anyone who attacks afganistan ends up winning problem always has been the occupation. Even Soviets crushed them it just became a money pit through supplies and station ing troops. NO diffrent for US except they managed to track down rebels better but on the end still same result a money pit.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr

You got a star for that last post from me dragon.






posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:42 PM
link   
a reply to: dragonridr



What I find funny is someone actually stared this there apparently 2 people clueless about history

I have read many of your posts and threads and I have learned much from them, but I won't reply to personal attacks posted by anyone. I thought you were above such things? I am here to discuss this issue at hand in a civilized manner.

Regards, Iwinder



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

In a declared war where GENERALS and Admirals command and not a police action like all the wars have been OH YES they will be VERY different,The president wouldn't command EACH battle.
AND a national EMERGENCY means WE are moving on a full war footing.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth



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.


Its new Khnibiny Jammer is a self defense system for the plane itself as its trying to not get shot down by a missile chasing it!!!

It in no possible way on earth can do anything to the Aegis destroyer at all. That article was a ridiculous piece of Russian Propaganda. The Russia plane did fly over the Cook but short of trying to Harass it, nothing happened at all. The Cook could have shredded the silly plane with several weapons systems but that would have started a hot war in no time.

A Russian Sunburn can only be shot in a straight line, it is not guided!! Our Carriers do not just sit around, they are a lot faster than any sub and the fastest ships in the Navy. They are also surrounded most of the time by many destroyers and Cruisers, never mind being shadowed at all times by U.S. Attack subs. No Commie sub will get close to our Carriers in time of war. Anything within 100 miles of one gets dead quick if its airborne and well lets just say no enemy sub will ever think about getting close enough to launch any kind of torpedo attack, its just not ever gonna happen unless its peacetime and one Chinese or NK sub goes on a suicide mission. Still, only a nuclear torpedo can think about sinking one and it may take two to finish it. They are built to take a beating and still keep on fighting.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Iwinder

What most of you fail to understand is, during a world war we will not be playing police after we already defeat your main army. In Iraq we were in Baghdad in what 30 days or less. In Astan we used mostly special forces and the main government IE the Taliban was running across the boarder.

You just do not have a clue how fast the U.S. will break the will of any army to fight or just plain slaughter them in a total war situation. In a gloves off war we will be like Mike Tyson(visa 1986) verse whoever wants to play Larry Holmes of today lol. Even with the idiots we have in charge today, if they let the big dog off the leash a whole lot of carnage is coming to whoever wants to play.

Our troops would just LOVE to get back in tank formations again after playing cop on the streets so long.



posted on May, 5 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

On the high seas there are Boats and Targets lol. Boats are subs!! The U.S. has the best Boats period! Our attack subs are unequaled in the oceans of the world. Some NATO boats are close but not in numbers or Intel providing full dominance of the seas.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join