is the US navy unbeatable???

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I have just one thing to type. No navy is unbeatable every navy has its own weakpoints.




posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 03:58 PM
link   
most people on this thread seem to think that advanced high speed missiles are the bane of the modern navy. but the article i linked to suggested that super quiet diesel-electric subs travelling slowly with powerful, accurate torpedoes could kill disproportionaly large numbers for there size and technological advancement.

Justin



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 04:24 PM
link   
I don't think there's such thing as an unbeatable navy. Just look at what happened to the spanish armada.

Btw, technology is nothing without good commanding.

[edit on 16-3-2006 by NuclearHead]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:03 PM
link   
In a no holds barred engagement the USN has significant technological and even more significant numerical advantages over any likely adversary. That doesn't mean the USN is unbeatable however. Good tactics or a technological ace in the hole can overcome otherwise superior forces.

I am less concerned about the AShCM threat - that's a threat the USN has been focused on preparing for since the 60's. Even the SSK threat, while harder to counter effectively, is something the USN has spent a lot of time and money training against.

If I were to pick a nascent threat that represents something that could make the "big deck navy" obsolete overnight it would be the possibility of ballistic missiles with precision guided maneuverable warheads. They're relatively cheap, they're coming in at four or five times the speed of an AShCM, and from above, a big flat CVN deck makes a very inviting radar bullseye. SM-6 may help, but like any other defensive system it can be saturated. A CVBG vith a Tico and a couple Arleigh Burkes is equipped to handle even large simultaneous cruise missile attacks - but how well is it going to cope with 50-100 IRBM's screaming towards the bird farm at Mach OMFG?

[edit on 3/16/06 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Barring idiot command (which is very unlikely) the US Navy is unbeatable against any single opponent or even a pair of opponents.

Sure someone could land a blow but they wouldn't survive long enough to land a second.

Only other force that's of any considereable size would be an EU Navy post 2012 (and that assumes a lot!)

Even with two big carriers the RN will be little more than 2 GBG's - powerful but only able to operate in two places at once

[edit on 16-3-2006 by Strangerous]



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 07:18 PM
link   
what's this naval infantry amentoartillery is talking about? somebody please enlighten me



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:17 PM
link   
Small bit of information on the infantry: www.strategypage.com...



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 09:21 PM
link   

If I were to pick a nascent threat that represents something that could make the "big deck navy" obsolete overnight it would be the possibility of ballistic missiles with precision guided maneuverable warheads.


I’m going to assume for obvious reasons that the ICBM’s in question would have a HE warhead? Then the question become how to make maneuverable warheads that has to be updated continuously and that has to be able to strike very close to a moving Carrier. Not to mention the risk that comes with launching ICBMs’, but for this scenario lets assume a country has the gall to do so.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   


I’m going to assume for obvious reasons that the ICBM’s in question would have a HE warhead?


Yes, nukes open up a whole other can of worms.
To be useful in anything less than total war they'd have to be conventional warheads.



Then the question become how to make maneuverable warheads that has to be updated continuously and that has to be able to strike very close to a moving Carrier.


The US already built radar guided maneuverable IRBM warheads back in the 80's - the Pershing II had one. And a carrier makes a very big radar target, especially from above.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:02 PM
link   
nothing is undefeatable. If the world wants the U.S. gone by today it can very well happen.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:08 PM
link   
WestPoint23,

Kh-41 Sunburn



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:37 PM
link   
There are marvelous responses to this thread. Most highlighting our technological superiorities, some dealing with rates of fire, some with the distance over which our power can be projected. The plain fact of the matter is that anyone, anywhere......at sometime........can be beaten.
I'm very proud of our weaponry, our advances and yes the superiority we seem to possess. I do not ever wish us to become complacent with that, for such power can be fleeting.
All should remember that our existence as a nation is the result of OUR overcoming the greatest naval power the planet had ever seen... the British Empire. I am quite sure they were supremely confident in their power in the late 18th century as well.



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:42 PM
link   
having been aboard 2 ships and shore duty in an 8.5 year stint, i would say that we do have the best ships in the world. and for the most part, the best men and women for crew. no matter what, there will always be weaknesses. the brits lost 5 modern ships in the falklands to a third world power. we almost lost the cole to a small boat full of explopsives. and if i remember correctly, just before this engagement in iraq, there was a think tank at a war college that ran simulations on our fleet entering the straits of hormuz. in this simulation at a choke point, they had shore based enemies low teching their movements and communications. using easily mobile surface missiles, they did pretty good damage to our fleet. there are examples all through history of currently modern forces being beaten in battles by primitives. either by some technical break down or most often, human error.

still we do have the best, but pride and hubris goes before a fall.

there can be only one!



posted on Mar, 16 2006 @ 11:49 PM
link   
is the US navy unbeatable???

Simple answer: Theoretically, nothing is unbeatable.







seekerof



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by urmomma158

Originally posted by Daedalus3


Lets not..

Brahmos in Production

This was 6 months ago..

I was not talking about the Brahmos in paritcular anyways..


you idiot the AEGIS has an extremely long range the aircraft shooting it would be destroyed and lets not forget the US's destroyers ahve a low observeable design like a small fishing boat or wavetop sure a non stealth ship with no aegis would be killed but not the US navy especially with the F 14's F 18E/F superhornets and the upcomingF 35C JSF. theDDX is going to be very stealthy as well and other ships will replace the carriers and battlships and subs with extremly quiet engines.


huh?!!

Was that an uncontrolled garbled burst or what??!



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
I think the main point was that the Burke class destroyers are considered LO, so they can be put out farther from the carrier, and intercept the planes carrying the ASMs. I've heard guys talk about a Burke going through a CBG and no one knowing they were there.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:54 AM
link   
My two cents:

First: The article is long and dragged out with little substance and mostly rhetoric. The rhetorician starts his claim that the US success in the Pacific was mostly due to Japanese stupidity. This is ignorance. The US success was well planning and marvelous tactics. The Japanese used marvelous tactics as well; not only Kamikazes but the Japanese were superb at night battles, which the US was poor in this department.

I think the claim that the US was "lucky" is an ignorant one at best.

Second: The article seems to draw erroneous conclusions. It is my belief that the US emphasis on Carriers, although clearly has a Naval role, is not for Naval purposes. The mere concept of a Battle group shows that the Carrier is seen as an inferior ship needing layers of protection by numerous ships. As opposed to WW2 where Carriers often travelled in packs of Carriers...and were used to shield Destroyers which were used for amphibious assaults and sub hunting...the Carriers were almost autonomous and were the most significant ship in the Navy during WW2.

However; it seems clear that the Navy lost hope in Carriers and their vulnerability to smart weapons. Again Destroyers and Cruisers and Submarines are the Kings of battle on the Seas.

This is why the Aegis class ships are the Flag ship of choice for most American Admirals.

This is why the world's navies largely ignore Carriers.

It's because of Carriers' significant contribution to projection of power to a nation (i.e. a floating air force capable usually of obtaining air superiority in a region where the USAF is not) that they still exist; and the abundance of US dollars.

Other nations with less funding have no longer bothered with the Carrier and this does not make them weaker.

This is probably an example of some US policy makers and the US public's belief their Navy is godly ... the US Carrier.

But tactics have changed and the US Navy is not oblivious; war games against the Soviet Navy taught much about how modern Naval warfare would be.

Battle Groups work well together to provide good air-defense and good missile defense etc. while being able to effectively project force.

Tactics are still good; and the addition of anti-sub warfare and what-not eliminates the stupid idea that a Diesel submarine would have much chance at all against any well equipped and prepared Navy.

Prepared is an important word; because the British Navy, while well equipped, was poorly prepared in the Falkand's war. Each Naval loss they incurred was mostly due to bad management practices; or occurred during the riskiest part of the mission...scouting.

The battle groups were almost entirely unaffected and the British Navy destroyed or forced capitulation from the Argentinian Navy rather swiftly; most of the damage incurred was by Argentinian land-based Air forces.

That's my two cents:

The article needs to focus on real modern warfare and not perceived modern warfare which is built on by past experiences.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
"A ship in the ocean is like a tank in the dessert."

First gen Kh-41 (SS-N-22 Sunburn) brings such truth to any navy vessel, much as Hellfire brough such truth to T-72s in Iraqi desert.

In modern warfare, NAVY is effective only against technologically inferior enemy, and plays the role of a political bargaining chip against a technologically advanced enemy.

It is simply a fact, that even when direct energy defense weapons will reach operational status, they will still be overcome by advanced anti-ship supersonic missiles, while defense/attack cost ratio is similar to the cost of a tank rolling through a desert, and a cost of a missile picking it off from 8k away.

US NAVY is the most powerful NAVY in the world, which only makes it the most expensive one. Its effectiveness in modern battlefield is nullified by advanced attack missiles. Considering the future of ramjet attack missiles, its intercept will be similar to an attempt of intercepting a maneuvering meteor, all while It takes only one, and you can't stop them all.

History will repeat it self as it did in WWII, when aircraft carriers put an end to the era of great battleships, as the missile will end the era of the carrier and other offensive naval vessels.

Subs are also in for trouble, as supersonic torpedo/missiles already posses the capability to swiftly reach any sub at any depth with out any chance of its escape.





Ironically the tank is the best weapon for the desert. It is efficient and strong and capable of taking advantage of the terrain fully. Helicopters have their intakes clogged and are vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire. So are aircraft.

In the first gulf war the primary destroyer of T-72s were M1A1s followed by the USAF...the USN only shot down a few enemy air craft and had only a few successful sorties.

So your analogy back-fires in this sense.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 05:53 AM
link   
The US Navy hasn't been in a serious naval battle since WW2 and anti-ship weapons systems have made such enormous advances since then that it's impossible to say whether it would win any major naval battle with another modern navy. The only naval skirmish which has occured since WW2 has been the Falklands War, in which just a couple of Exocet missiles were used with devastating effect.

Theoretically the use of nuclear weapons against a carrier group could wipe the whole group out in an instant. In addition, airborne assault, anti-ship cruise missiles and torpedoes from modern silent diesel submarines could swarm any naval taskforce and probably win with conventional weapons alone, imo. Hopefully such a thing never happens.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by JamesinOz]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   
I think people are confusing two very different issues. That is wether the US navy is unbeatable or whether they are invunrable. The later is certainly not true as attacks against US ships in both the Iran-Iraq war, the gulf war and recent times (USS Cole) have shown. However being unbeatable is about being able to take punnishment from an enemy and still be able to operate as an effective fighting force and in this the US navy is supreme.





top topics
 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join