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: 6
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
Outdated infos already.

Russia now reportedly has an even more powerful weapons system, called the "Khibiny", that is set to be mounted on its new fleet of SU-34 air dominance fighters.

Purportedly the Khibiny system has completely disabled the USS Donald Cook's Aegis system while it was in the Black Sea last year.

The Khibinysystems not only can disable distant ships and planes, but also incoming missiles AND additionally offer a EM "shield" protection against any missiles attempting to hit the jet fighters. It apparantly can also disrupt or fool the signals that the jet fighters are sending to the radars, if I get that correctly. Though that's according to the rumors, that are very hard to confirm or deny, just as the translations from Russian military papers are hard to understand.

The US Navy's worst nightmare:

en.wikipedia.org...#/media/File:Sukhoi_Su-34_%2809_RED%29.jpg

If this technology is as potent as the rumors are saying, most of the whole US Navy AND US Air Force are screwed from the start.
edit on 3/4/15 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)

edit on 3/4/15 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Echtelion

It's a self defense system. It's similar to what is mounted on F-16 fighters built by the US. It's not capable of shutting down an Aegis, or any other ship based combat system.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: neformore

And if you'd rather take the attitude that ANYONE that says that US technology is better than Russian or Chinese, as it stands right now, even when it's based on first hand experience, suffers from ASS as you like to put it, that's YOUR problem.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
I'm aware of the following nations putting subs inside a US carrier bubble and "sinking" a CVN

China
Canada
Russia
Netherlands
UK
Australia
Norway
France
Chile

What people with American Superiority Syndrome forget is that you can have all the technology in the world, but its the calibre of people running the vessels, and their strategies that count. (that, and the age old virtue of luck)



The thing is alot of those are close US allies.

UK,Canada, Australia and France have ships more or less on par with the US and we know military secrets that Russia and china (hopefully) don’t so will have a better idea of weak spots to exploit.

Im guessing the US in exercises get one up on our fleet too for same reasons.

And the whole point is for that to happen so we can plug those little weaknesses.

If Russia or China get the drop on US ships its likely blind luck.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Echtelion

It's a self defense system. It's similar to what is mounted on F-16 fighters built by the US. It's not capable of shutting down an Aegis, or any other ship based combat system.


It's clearly described as "jamming" devices, and powerful ones. Not just anti-radar devices.

Also mounted on SU-35 Flankers, the smaller versions of the SU-24:

www.ausairpower.net...
edit on 3/4/15 by Echtelion because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Ex_MislTech

I just got through the "Pentagon Wars" AND I was ON a Bradley in D. Storm.
FUNNY how F-35 came to mind,when I watched it.


edit on 3-4-2015 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Echtelion

What do you think a self defense system IS? It's a jamming device designed to jam missile and aircraft radars, so that they can't see the aircraft. It does it in various ways, putting false targets up on the radar, blotting the radar out completely, etc. It doesn't "turn off" an Aegis system the way that it's claimed.

Right there in the link that you provided, it's an RFS ESM/RHAW.

RFS is Radio Frequency Surveillance. It monitors radio frequencies, and detects transmissions.
ESM is Electronic Support Measure. It detects, records, and identifies incoming signals.
RHAW is Radar Homing And Warning. It detects when a radar system is targeting the aircraft, tells you the type of radar, and if a missile has been launched at the aircraft.

So how exactly does an RFS ESM/RHAW system shut down an Aegis? It puts out kilowatts of power, against a system capable of directing megawatts of power, in a fine beam. It could burn right through any jamming out there that can be carried by an aircraft that size.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neformore
if any of the so called "experts" or "patriots" in this thread don't understand that, then they simply have not got a clue what they are talking about.




Yeah, all the current and former military members posting in this thread don't have a clue.

Brilliant.

I wish I could award you negative stars.
edit on 4/3/2015 by Answer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Like CV/CVN carry all the US Navy aircraft.

Hit a carrier and rest assured L S D and L H A will be launching.


edit on 3-4-2015 by paradoxious because: damned censors censoring legitimate terms



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Echtelion

Yep. No way the US has anything of the equivalent or the ability to counter it. All the treads on this site about US black-ops and secret budgets, and this is your end-game premise?

The US, where half the population thought Red Dawn was a soft-porn short? Sure. Russia; China, with it's 2.5 decade old technology, why not..

Let's actually see that in action instead of a cardboard cutout with no real defense.

I am pretty sure I could sink the Nimitz with a rusty sledgehammer, given enough time and 0 ballistic missiles flying at my head, but hey, why not?

It sounds like your wishes and dreams are conflicting with reality and facts.
edit on 3-4-2015 by sstech because: Spelling



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: buddah6

Since when to politicians and leaders listen to the wish or direction of their citizens. Those days are long past.

Many people now can't even work 30 hours a week because these geniuses set the standard work week to 30 hours. Ignorance listening to greed doesn't end well for any but a few.

I like what you're saying!



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: mazzroth

lol, if your going to put your money on who can kick whose ass... i wouldn't bet on the Russians. Their tech hasn't held up that well when put to the test. If they go nuclear, well, we all lose don't we.

V



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:00 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I agree that many war should have not been started. We keep getting politicians who are only elected to enrich themselves and their cronies. You always have to wonder about someone who spends $3 million to be elected to earn $176k annually.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
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.


edit on 3/4/15 by neformore because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Open post to all who actually think the US Navy wouldn't be able to hold it's own against foreign militaries.

THE US NAVY HAS MORE THAN A FEW SURPRISES UP IT"S SLEEVE.


Funny underwater warfare was brought up as if we we're lacking in that category.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:28 PM
link   

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.



Who said anything about invincible? I haven't seen anyone else say that. The OP is titled "US Navy Wouldn't Last a Week in WW3". Which you know as well as anyone is complete and utter nonsense. You popped in to stir the pot with war games outcomes which isn't the topic. I think you just get bent at American attitudes and look to take us yanks down a notch any chance you get...which is certainly your right.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Given what has been spent on the US military is should be way ahead in the game. But history has shown how a less well armed group can do some serious damage to a superior force. Sometimes winning most battles doesn't win a war.

One problem I see is the US creating the idea of it needing world dominance. I suppose the argument is that if we don't, some else unfriendly to the US, will. One side effect seems to be the US creating a lot of enemies in it pursuit of that end.

A Catch-22 is seems.
edit on 4/3/2015 by roadgravel because: fix a sentence



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:45 PM
link   

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.


The OP used an article with a Russian spin that quoted someone from the 70's then used a line about the US relying on Battleships which haven't been in service since 2005/2006.

it has nothing to do with anyone or anything being invincible but the fact that much of the source used in the OP story is based on inaccurate info.



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: roadgravel
Given what has been spent on the US military is should be way ahead in the game. But history has shown how a less well armed group can do some serious damage to a superior force. Sometimes winning most battles doesn't win a war.

One problem I see is the US creating the idea of it needing world dominance. I suppose the argument is that if we don't, some else unfriendly to the US, will. One side effect seems to be the US creating a lot of enemies in it pursuit of that end.

A Catch-22 is seems.


Maybe the case in ground warfare.
When it comes to navy and air combat tec always wins or has since Vietnam.

UK showed that in 1983 the only modern navy to navy war.

USA has shown that with Air power in every war its been in since vietnam when it has cut down Russian crap like swating flys.

The weak link always seems to be ground warfare.


But at the moment nothing could stand up against USAF or the US navy.
If you add NATO allies too? And Japan? China and Russia would have no chance at sea or in the air.
edit on 3-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 06:02 PM
link   

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.

If (God forbid) a conventional war broke out between the U.S and the Russians, that war would by default include every NATO member state. So not only would the Russians have to contend with the U.S fleet, they would have to contend with the French and British fleets as well. There is no way in hell they could sink even one of those fleets within a week, even with the use of Nuclear weapons, as each of those nations maintain a fleet of nuclear submarines (the U.S having the most formidable).

It's one thing to overestimate the abilities of a military. It's another to completely underestimate it to the point of absurdity.




top topics



 
25
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join