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: 3
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:36 AM
link   

originally posted by: mazzroth

originally posted by: LOSTinAMERICA
If the United States is so weak, why doesn't anyone attack instead of talk? It's because we would destroy them if they did.

Like the 22 Terrorist's back in 2001 ? from then to now the US has become a Rabid Psychotic Serial Killer who has been hell bent on invading more Countries than it usually did. I bet the Romans thought back in the day they were invincible as well.

If WW3 started I would be more worried of the Americans than any other nation, no other Country has used Nuclear weapons on civilians and the USA see's everyone and everything as a hostile enemy.


I starred you and quoted you for accuracy.

We are a Spartan warrior species.

We pride ourselves in aggression and combat prowess.

The only time we stop fighting amongst ourselves is when we have something else to aim our aggressions at.

The gov has to keep coming up with somthing, or they know they will be next on the block.

We are chaos incarnate.

It is what we do.




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: abe froman
United States Naval Space Command.

Tremble before it's might.

Not to mention US Navy Laser weapons and rail guns, and that's what's public knowledge.

Russia's navy is 40% rust and 60% Putin's chest hair.


Compared to Chuck Norris' beard, Putin's chest hair are found wanting.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 02:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick
it was thoroughly vetted.


Then show us these "thoroughly vetted" links....



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Answer

lol, it proves everything, that its escort fleet was unable to detect must less defend an aircraft carrier from a submarine attack.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: johnwick
it was thoroughly vetted.


Then show us these "thoroughly vetted" links....


I can't link from my phone.

This POS is more illtempered then a troubled child on crack.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

OK I had to write it down and then type it out.

I believe this was the thread.

I could be wrong, but I did read a thread here that went into extensive detail.

I believe this was the one, though st the time there were many.

ETA- maybe we should just ask zaphod, he is one of our resident experts that participated in most of those threads.
edit on 3-4-2015 by johnwick because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: johnwick

This POS is more illtempered then a troubled child on crack.
www.abovetopsecret.com...


If you had read the first post you would have seen the claim
"No US ship has ever approached Russian territorial waters again."

Ignoring the fact that it was buzzed on the 12 April 2014, but did not leave the black sea until 24 April, 2014. It then returned to the Black Sea on the 24th December.... Also "The U.S. command ship USS Mount Whitney (LCC-20) entered the Black Sea on 11th October— a day after guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG-67)" so as we easily see the claims in that thread are nonsense!



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:29 AM
link   
One place I read that Chinese are willing to commit 1000 missiles to kill a single aircraft carrier of USN. Makes sense as $1B worth of missiles taking out $5B AC would be a friendly mathematics.

However, the question is if the AC and group is beyond the 300 or so km range then how will these ASMs be utilized. Somehow a full squadron of strike aircrafts will have to sneak in atleast 250 kms from the AC battle group and unleash dozens of ASMs.

Did not read the OPs article but would strongly disagree that USN will be "sunk" in 3 weeks. Usually, USN comes into play once total air superiority has been achieved and even then the ACs remain at a safe distance.

Do Russians or Chinese have the ability to negate the variable of the STEALTH airplanes and cruise missiles? That's where the first shots of the conventional warfare will be coming from.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Expat888
kiss their arse
\\]

*humanity



originally posted by: Expat888goodbye when it starts ..


inhumanity.


People are phucked



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:49 AM
link   
a reply to: AthlonSavage

Yet the hue and cry is the U.S. spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined..Hmmm.

Methinks you underestimate U.S. capabilities. Rumors persist of the F-35 being able to send Stuxnet level signals back via the radar returns of ground Sam sites.

If that is true, then that can be incorporated into any ship as well. Incapacitate the computing ability of a missile and it becomes 'unguided'.

About a year ago, the head of the Chinese military was taken on a tour of some of our more sensitive facilities and shown some capabilities of them. He came out and stated flat out that China couldn't match U.S. technological capability.

What else they're sitting on? Who knows.

Last point. You point out both Chinese and Russian capability. Unlikely they face both nations at the same time. Don't you think?

No one country will have the best of every weapon system. It's never happened before and it won't the next time around.

My money is on the U.S. having more of the best than anyone else. By a long shot.

A week you say? What are we doing during that week is the question......



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:36 AM
link   
Im certain we'll see weaponry we couldn't ever imagine come out of hiding in an ww3 event. Weaponry we never heard or seen before.
edit on 3-4-2015 by MegaSpace because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:45 AM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

If the US started getting their butts kicked bad with carriers being sunk and a lot of our US soldiers dying like an entire aircraft carrier or 2, then you would see very many mushroom clouds.
So, no, the US would not lose, the entire planet would lose.

If those new hotshot military's of other countries begin to try and kick our butts and do some big kills, then they will get nuked. And they will launch the nasty stuff I can guarantee it. And everyone will lose.


edit on 3-4-2015 by NoCorruptionAllowed because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:54 AM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth
no they didn't they just lived for conquest and glory on the battlefield and in the end they fell after forgetting themselves and leaving their fate to foreigners.

and honestly we've only actually "invaded" 6 nations in a span of 67 years and we've taken nothing from them that doesn't benefit them afterwards, most conflicts we are involved in are not even our own and we only get involved to honor alliances usually.
you just stated the issue between america, the middle east and the western world as a whole with that paranoid fearful response there, it's no wonder we share more in common with eastern nations, we don't think like you so you see our actions and behavior in a blatant and literal way, you see the surface but you do not understand why or what we really are or what we really want, we hide behind layers but you can't see the truth so you fear us and worry that we might be a threat to you.

even now you miss the game being played between us and the eastern world(russia,china, etc), you see the contents of the game but you don't understand and you assume the worst about it, ww3 will not happen by our hands no matter how bad we might seem to you.

people(americans included) need to stop looking at america as a western nation, the cold war changed that fact, we are not western in any sense and haven't been for a long time now, we are very different from you under the surface and it should be obvious by now.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   
Here I like this link...

Russia compared to the US militarily...

www.globalfirepower.com... es

Russia is outmatched in every way conventionally, but we all know Russia would toss the Nukes rather than be in a conventional war.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:15 AM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

The flexing of military might at sea with warships is an old-fashioned gimmick outmoded since the first ICBM took flight decades ago. (A whole fleet gone in a blink.) Then, through Reagan's initiative, later came space-based weapons (long ignored and denied) to round out more precise weapons of attack. These possibly are high-powered lasers (where the chatter usually is) to far more efficient and less costly rail guns, even to the everyday variety of armored missiles from orbital platform dropping down so fast that no chain gun or repulsive missile can engage them in flight. It will be like shooting ducks in a barrel as the old saying goes.

Much of the expensive military programs today that we are told about are to keep America's foundering industries afloat, to keep skilled people employed, and lastly to cover the behind-the-existence of a whole new era of defense spending and development that hides exotic methods of movement in air and space. UFOs and triangles really are real you know.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:27 AM
link   
There is no need to be downcast there is still the might of the Royal Navy, it is still 1910 right?



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: hotel1
There is no need to be downcast there is still the might of the Royal Navy, it is still 1910 right?


I think at this point we should stop talking about individual nations and who would win. The west is not going to start a war and any action Russia takes against a NATO members will end putins presidency.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:47 AM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

I tend to agree with the article, for the following point. The difference between the Russian and the US Navy is, that the latter still requires sinking, while the first one is already mostly submerged.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: hotel1
There is no need to be downcast there is still the might of the Royal Navy, it is still 1910 right?


I think at this point we should stop talking about individual nations and who would win. The west is not going to start a war and any action Russia takes against a NATO members will end putins presidency.


What you say is almost certainly correct and a protracted proxy war is probably more likely. If there is a combined NATO action that requires a cocktail party, and a damn fine marching band! you know who to call.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer
The US has nearly as many subs as Russia and China combined. The difference is our subs have the technological advantage.



Well I hear RN navys subs have a slight edge over the US ones. But meh we are allies and will be fighting on your side anyway

But still you have 10x as many subs as ours anyway.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: khnum
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.


Yes but bare in mind half of the Chinese and Russian fleet are old 70's throw backs. And half the russian fleet is in piss poor repair.

A US or most Nato Submarine or Destroy is likley equal to 5 old Russian or Chinese counterparts.

In fact I believe a royal navy Type 45 destroyer is more powerful that 5 old royal navy destroyed from the 70's.
A US Arliegh Burke Destroyer is going to be exactly the same.

Sure China or Russia have some modern ships coming into service but they are new and far between so far.



new topics

top topics



 
25
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join