is the US navy unbeatable???

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz
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]


Why does everyone say that the Falklands was too small of a conflict to accurately judge?

The British lost dozens of ships and the Argentinians lost dozens more.

Over 90 argentinian planes were shot down and something like 50 British planes.

I can't remember the exact figures but it was more than a "few exocets" and the exocets were used well on scout ships hence their effectiveness.




posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Hmmm methinks you should do a bit more research.

The RN lost 6 ships and 10 more were damaged, plus 34 aircraft. Im not sure what the Argentinian losses were



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Hmmm methinks you should do a bit more research.

The RN lost 6 ships and 10 more were damaged, plus 34 aircraft. Im not sure what the Argentinian losses were


That's around what I said and I put my disclosure in there: what's your hostility for?

"Only a few Exocet missiles were used".

6 Ships sinking is HUGE those ships have hundreds of men on them and they all have to go into the water and be rescued; the damages were not "superficial" either; some of them were sever and equivalent to the USS Cole.

A total of 16 ships being hit: on the British side alone is extensive data for judging modern Naval Warfare.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:31 PM
link   
jebus wept


stratrf , are you tottaly devoid of ANY research skills - or do you just like to preted you are

see here : www.naval-history.net...

chapters 52 , 53 and 54 ARE THE RELEVANT ONES



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
The RN lost 6 ships and 10 more were damaged, plus 34 aircraft


Thats still a lot for any task force to lose. If a 2 CVBG's lost 6 ships and had 10 damaged and lost 34 aircraft between them in a single operation then it would be very big news and would make news world wide.

Justin



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 06:25 PM
link   
The Falklands incurred greater losses on both sides that I was aware of, so perhaps not just a skirmish. As I understand it the Exocets did a lot more damage than was expected at the time and underscored the danger that these types of weapons pose to modern naval forces.

Imo, flashpoints for possible naval battles in the medium term future might be in the Straits of Malacca and the Eastern Mediteranean. In the Straits of Malacca it could be China vs USN/allied navies and I'd imagine submarines would play a big role in any such conflict which would be over a Chinese naval blockade of trade routes. Such a conflict could spread to the waters around Indonesia so hopefully the Aussie diesel subs will be working by then as they'd play a central role in any such conflict.

[edit on 17-3-2006 by JamesinOz]



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
I think the Navy is going to have a heck of atime trying to create a Naval Infantry equivalent to the U.S. Army Special Forces. The SF have been the best at what they do for over 50 years. You can't just learn 50 years worth of knowledge and experience, unless they want the SF to teach this Naval Infantry.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Considering the Infantry is to be made up of those 70-80% of potential SEAL's that didnt gain their Tridents... Yeah, they washed out of BUD/s but that doesnt mean that they wont make good soldiers, simply means that they didnt have what it takes to make it through our countries most intense training regime.

Plus, if you consider the fact of how highly and actively we train our M.S.F detachments (which are primarly made up of standard-rate MAA's), then it makes the possibility of a SpecOps eqiuvlent Infantry even more likely.



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 08:45 PM
link   
Once DDX hits waters in 2012, I would say so...



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 08:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Foxe
Once DDX hits waters in 2012, I would say so...


One thing that I read in this weeks AWST was that the Navy is studying if it can fit a conventional warhead to a trident missile giving it a hypersonic responce. Unique metalurgy was being looked into for the project including a single warhead and multiple dense metal rods with ground penatrating capacity. Its CEP was nominaly 10 feet. If you have many rods like a shotgun with a 10 foot CEP you could use this on major capital ships IMHO. I don't think even the Aegis system as it stands now could intercept such a SLBM. Nor could you really hold the launch platform at risk since the range would be over 6000 miles



posted on Mar, 17 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
Thats still a lot for any task force to lose. If a 2 CVBG's lost 6 ships and had 10 damaged and lost 34 aircraft between them in a single operation then it would be very big news and would make news world wide.

Justin

Look how many ships where sent:

en.wikipedia.org...

Aircraft in the fight.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
jebus wept


stratrf , are you tottaly devoid of ANY research skills - or do you just like to preted you are

see here : www.naval-history.net...

chapters 52 , 53 and 54 ARE THE RELEVANT ONES


Those chapters prove everything I said.

I stated previously that I don't remember the exact numbers; that they are somewhere around "blah blah blah".

Then someone pointed the exact figures; and that was fine; because my point that the Falklands was a significant enough battle to be used to judge military strategy at Sea with contemporary weapons was proven.

And this continues to prove my point.

So...what are you? An instigator?



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:21 AM
link   
Well mate considering how many ships in total where sent by the briths forces (110 ships ) thats not exsactly fair to say it was massive losses, mind you even one british servicemen dead is bad enough never mind 255.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 12:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Well mate considering how many ships in total where sent by the briths forces (110 ships ) thats not exsactly fair to say it was massive losses, mind you even one british servicemen dead is bad enough never mind 255.


I didn't mean that there was massive loss; only enough to judge by. Keep in mind English is not even my 2nd language.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stratrf_Rus

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
jebus wept


stratrf , are you tottaly devoid of ANY research skills - or do you just like to preted you are

see here : www.naval-history.net...

chapters 52 , 53 and 54 ARE THE RELEVANT ONES


Those chapters prove everything I said.

I stated previously that I don't remember the exact numbers; that they are somewhere around "blah blah blah".

Then someone pointed the exact figures; and that was fine; because my point that the Falklands was a significant enough battle to be used to judge military strategy at Sea with contemporary weapons was proven.

And this continues to prove my point.

So...what are you? An instigator?


This is what you said

Why does everyone say that the Falklands was too small of a conflict to accurately judge?

The British lost dozens of ships and the Argentinians lost dozens more.

Over 90 argentinian planes were shot down and something like 50 British planes.

I can't remember the exact figures but it was more than a "few exocets" and the exocets were used well on scout ships hence their effectiveness


The above is complete BS, and nowhere near accurate. Another case of you shooting off your mouth before doing at least cursory research



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:45 AM
link   
Did they even take 34 aircraft with them in the first place?


what the Falklands showed was the vulnrability to anchored ships to iron bombs - yes they bombed ships , AND that the media needs to be controlled


As a direct result of the news reporting that the argentinian bombs wern`t arming properly because of the low level - i think one went through the HMS Broadsword - the argentinians armed there bombs on the runway , and IIRC the HMS Antelope was lost as a result.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 04:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by justin_barton3
Thats still a lot for any task force to lose. If a 2 CVBG's lost 6 ships and had 10 damaged and lost 34 aircraft between them in a single operation then it would be very big news and would make news world wide.

Justin

Look how many ships where sent:

en.wikipedia.org...

Aircraft in the fight.
en.wikipedia.org...


Okay then. if a US navy task force lost 6 ships, had 10 ships seriously damaged and lost 34 aircraft then it would be major news worldwide.

Justin



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
Did they even take 34 aircraft with them in the first place?


what the Falklands showed was the vulnrability to anchored ships to iron bombs - yes they bombed ships , AND that the media needs to be controlled


As a direct result of the news reporting that the argentinian bombs wern`t arming properly because of the low level - i think one went through the HMS Broadsword - the argentinians armed there bombs on the runway , and IIRC the HMS Antelope was lost as a result.


The ships weren't anchored...if you are implying that they were just sitting ducks.

The Media always needs to be controlled...even the Founding Fathers knew to keep the media out of making their Democracy.



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 06:34 AM
link   


The ships weren't anchored...if you are implying that they were just sitting ducks.


the ships might not have been achored but they werent moving anywhere most of the time. they were just sitting there so actually they were sitting ducks.

Justin



posted on Mar, 18 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
Okay then. if a US navy task force lost 6 ships, had 10 ships seriously damaged and lost 34 aircraft then it would be major news worldwide.

Justin

It was.....hence why we now have phalanx...





 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join