is the US navy unbeatable???

page: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by JamesinOz
The Aussie Kokums Collins class subs are fine boats, however they've been plagued by numerous problems resulting from their construction in Australia which imo lacks the technical expertise to build such boats. Most of these problems have been resolved, at enormous taxpayer expense, so one would hope they'd be fully operational before any large scale naval engagement occurs in the region. It would've been far easier to allow Kokums to build these subs lock, stock and barrel and deliver them working properly and in one piece to the Aussie navy.


Hmm, how about crap Swedish design. It is well known the Swedish designed propeller was too noisy and tended to cavitate. Hence we had to get them milled with US Navy expertise. Not to mention bad software.
If theyhad been made in Sweden the only thing which would hvae been fiffrent is that all of teh money wopuld hvae been spent fixing them over there and the US NAvy wouldn't have lent their expertise.




posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 10:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by justin_barton3
im not sure where i found this link if it was on ATS and im repeating a thread then i apologise and mods please delete.

www.g2mil.com...

Im English but i always thought that the US navy was indefeatable and could take on almost anything and still win. This has shaken that view severly and i know almost want a full scale naval war against another large sea force just to see whether the US navy is indefeatable.

Does anyone know if the guy who wrote this is just anti US navy or if what he says is the unbaised truth?

Justin

ps i apologise for the length. i havent read all of the link but i have read most.

Link doesn't seem to work. What was it talking about?



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Taishyou
Link doesn't seem to work. What was it talking about?


Works fine for me. does it not work for anyone else? have you tried copy and pasting into your address bar.

The article is about how the US doctor all reports from their war excercises to show the USN in the best light possible and how the US navy is very vunerable to slow moving quiet diesal subs.

Justin



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:04 PM
link   
periwinkle blue,

"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."

read some books and educate your self for Gods sake.

blackthorne,

"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."

Same kind of nonsense as; "Driven two Cadillac's and nothing else, I can say that we make the best cars in the world, made by the best men and women."- all cause I say so.

Stratrf_Rus,

"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."

You're a Russian, what the hell happened to your common sense? Should I guess or leave it alone?

Sub-sonic relic such as Exocet proved to be more then capable of defeating modern ship defenses on a number of occasions, striking both English and US navy vessels armed with Phalanx and other defenses.
Kh-41 type weapon alone is capable of neutralising ANY current vessel, not considering a myriad of new generation weapons.

New generation munitions such as air launched ram jet delivery shell housing a supersonic torpedo CLEARLY marks the END of offensive NAVY vessel OF ANY kind.

Modern deployment options allow for a simultaneous attack from the air and from under the water, leaving ANY surface vessels DEFENSELESS.

Intercepting a small target maneuvering at Mach 3+ is EXTREMELY problematic, and requires implementation of NAVY ABM systems which have not even been proposed yet, while defense from a supersonic torpedo requires an intercepting supersonic torpedo, technology which US NAVY does not posses, and even when it will, it takes only one to detonate under the hull and snap the bow by the rising gas bubble.

In any regard, attempts to adequately defend ANY Navy vessel against such weapons is futile, not only by its virtue, but by the enormous cost of defense verses attack ratio.

While energy weapons will naturally evolve and replace kinetic defense weapons, retrofitting an attack weapon to withstand higher tolerance is MUCH cheaper.

Just as with all leaps of technology in military, it always takes the "Charge of the light Brigade" to drive the point home, and unfortunately at the enormous cost of life. Just as with musket verses knight, cavalry charges on artillery, infantry charges on machine guns, battleship verses the carrier in WWII etc, and the same fate will fall upon the 20th century concept of Naval power projection when it encounters weapons of the 21ct century.



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 05:19 PM
link   
you should get out of bed on the other side tomorrow iskander.

Justin



posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Hmm, how about crap Swedish design. It is well known the Swedish designed propeller was too noisy and tended to cavitate. Hence we had to get them milled with US Navy expertise. Not to mention bad software.
If theyhad been made in Sweden the only thing which would hvae been fiffrent is that all of teh money wopuld hvae been spent fixing them over there and the US NAvy wouldn't have lent their expertise.



rogue1, I wonder if this was 'well known' during the tender process? If so, it means that whoever in the Aussie Defence Dept. was responsible for awarding the tender was grossly negligent, resulting in a threat to Australia's national security and a massive bill to the Aussie taxpayer. Maybe the Aussie Defence Dept should have just awarded the tender to the American company bidding for it? Maybe the people lobbying for Kokums wined and dined those responsible so much that the tender was awarded without due consideration? Stranger things have happened.

[edit on 20-3-2006 by JamesinOz]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Sub-sonic relic such as Exocet proved to be more then capable of defeating modern ship defenses on a number of occasions, striking both English and US navy vessels armed with Phalanx and other defenses.
Kh-41 type weapon alone is capable of neutralising ANY current vessel, not considering a myriad of new generation weapons.


Oh yeah, when and where did this happen ? Which ships mountaing pahalanx's were successfully attacked by the Exocet?



New generation munitions such as air launched ram jet delivery shell housing a supersonic torpedo CLEARLY marks the END of offensive NAVY vessel OF ANY kind.


Sounds like fanatasy to me, whose developing these weapons ?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:01 AM
link   
LOL, OK justin_barton3, I'll do that, here is a link for you, enjoy.

www.strategypage.com...

Yes, they are the reverse engineered ones that were bought.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
New generation munitions such as air launched ram jet delivery shell housing a supersonic torpedo CLEARLY marks the END of offensive NAVY vessel OF ANY kind.




Air launched ram jet delievery shell for super sonic torpedos???

This is just pure speculation, supersonic supercavitating torpedos are classified if any exist, so details are theoretical for us. As is any Modern operational ram jet delievery system for said torpedo.

I mean if your going to just throw out theoretical technology why not Hyper sonic torpedos with anti-matter warheads while your at it.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 01:41 AM
link   


Oh yeah, when and where did this happen ? Which ships mountaing pahalanx's were successfully attacked by the Exocet?


USS Stark, 1987. Hit by two Iraqi Exocets.

Still I think comments about the "helplessness" of surface vessels against cruise missile attack are exaggerated. The USN, the Russians and the Europeans all have developed systems capable of taking out incoming cruise missiles. Defeating large scale cruise missile attacks was the primary purpose for creating the Aegis system.

And taking out Mach 3 AShCM's does not require an ABM system. SM-2 was designed with that kind of threat in mind, as was ASTER and probably SA-N-6 and HQ-9.

[edit on 3/20/06 by xmotex]



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:32 AM
link   
The USN is probably 98% unbeatable.




External source

StrategyPage -

Russia recently did a study of their navy and found that, because of the age of their ships, and the lack of maintenance since the Soviet Union disintegrated in 1991, the fleet would be reduced to sixty seaworthy warships and submarines in ten years.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 02:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex


Oh yeah, when and where did this happen ? Which ships mountaing pahalanx's were successfully attacked by the Exocet?


USS Stark, 1987. Hit by two Iraqi Exocets.


Well it seems that the Phalanx system on the USS Stak wasn't working.


Specifically, there was debate as to whether the Phalanx systems -a close-range radar guided chain gun used for missile defense- was operational when the Stark put out to sea. Captain Brindel testified on record that they were, Navy technicians in Bahrain said they were not.
officersclub.blogspot.com...



and the Phalanx, a six-barreled gun that could fire 3,000 uranium rounds a minute at incoming missiles. Brindel insisted that his ship's combat system was fully operational, but Navy technicians in Bahrain said the Stark's Phalanx system had not been working properly when the frigate put out to sea. (Brindel was relieved of duty and later forced to retire.)
www.usswaddell.com...


Damage to the USS Stark after Exocet attack


There also some interesting pictures from the rebuilding of the USS Stark.

www.usswaddell.com...



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 04:06 AM
link   
it could also be mentioned that in GW2 a missile was enaged AFTER it had passed near the rear of a carrier (within range of the cws) by another ship on the far side of the formation!



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 05:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
it could also be mentioned that in GW2 a missile was enaged AFTER it had passed near the rear of a carrier (within range of the cws) by another ship on the far side of the formation!


What type of missile ? Do you hve any link to this information ?



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by iskander
Sub-sonic relic such as Exocet proved to be more then capable of defeating modern ship defenses on a number of occasions, striking both English and US navy vessels armed with Phalanx and other defenses.
Kh-41 type weapon alone is capable of neutralising ANY current vessel, not
New generation munitions such as air launched ram jet delivery shell housing a supersonic torpedo CLEARLY marks the END of offensive NAVY vessel OF ANY kind.

English navy? Thiers no such thing.
Theres a royal navy hell mabye thats what you meant but there hasnt been an "english navy" for several centuries now...Exocet never sunk any british vessels with phalanx's , because we only equiped them after we had won the war. Unless your saying that britian had a small war inbetween just to keep us going and to keep us occupied until desert storm?
Air launched onnly works if theres something to launch it off, btw look up metal storm it might suprise you.
Or point laser weaponry, cant beat speed of light.



posted on Mar, 20 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Harlequin
it could also be mentioned that in GW2 a missile was enaged AFTER it had passed near the rear of a carrier (within range of the cws) by another ship on the far side of the formation!


What type of missile ? Do you hve any link to this information ?



Well - it was USS Missouri in GW1:


Gulf War (1991)
In February 1991 during the first Gulf War the battleship USS Missouri, the Sea Dart carrying HMS Gloucester and the Phalanx CIWS-equipped USS Jarrett were engaged by an Iraqi Silkworm missile (also known as a Seersucker). After an unsuccessful response from the Phalanx 20mm CIWS, the missile was intercepted by a Sea Dart fired from Gloucester', making this the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile during combat at sea.



BUT

i readi it on here about GW2 and the missile miss.



posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:14 AM
link   
to add something:

carrier killer


Apparently fired from standard 533mm torpedo tubes, Shkval has a range of about 7,500 yards. The weapon clears the tube at fifty knots, upon which its rocket fires, propelling the missile through the water at 360 kph [about 100 m/sec / 230 mph / 200-knots], three or four times as fast as conventional torpedoes.



posted on Mar, 22 2006 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Hit by two Exocets and it still didn't sink... Pretty good if you ask me.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 08:12 PM
link   
No Navy is unsinkable or unbeatable...

However, I believe the USN to be as close to that as one can realistically expect.



posted on Mar, 26 2006 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Hit by two Exocets and it still didn't sink... Pretty good if you ask me.


What was hit by two exocets?

I'm sorry I couldn't make it out from the posts above..
This was in the Falklands?





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join