is the US navy unbeatable???

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 02:18 AM
link   
no , the USS Stark was hit by 2 exorcets




posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
In the world today the us navy is unbeatable, not saying no one can a sink a ship or 2, but no other navy can even touch the usa. It would have to be everyone vs. the usa and then it would be close. no one but us has realiable aircraft carriers, and i know the brits have 2 or 3 but that doesnt really matter when all your bringing to the table are sub sonic harriers.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
In the world today the us navy is unbeatable, not saying no one can a sink a ship or 2, but no other navy can even touch the usa. It would have to be everyone vs. the usa and then it would be close. no one but us has realiable aircraft carriers, and i know the brits have 2 or 3 but that doesnt really matter when all your bringing to the table are sub sonic harriers.

Those subsoninc harriers took down top of the line super sonnic rafles in the falklands, besides we could seriosly put a dent in any navy given the chance but the fact is one torpedo up the screw and that carrier is nothing but a sitting helicopter pad.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by shortmanx5
In the world today the us navy is unbeatable, not saying no one can a sink a ship or 2, but no other navy can even touch the usa. It would have to be everyone vs. the usa and then it would be close. no one but us has realiable aircraft carriers, and i know the brits have 2 or 3 but that doesnt really matter when all your bringing to the table are sub sonic harriers.

Those subsoninc harriers took down top of the line super sonnic rafles in the falklands, besides we could seriosly put a dent in any navy given the chance but the fact is one torpedo up the screw and that carrier is nothing but a sitting helicopter pad.


The sub would have to get close enough first, and ok say you take out 1 or 2, um how many does the usa have 13 plus the smaller ones. So yea you can have one or 2 but you woulnt get lucky more than once or twice.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:29 PM
link   
have the harriers taken out any f-18s, f-16s,f-22,etc i didnt think so.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
The sub would have to get close enough first, and ok say you take out 1 or 2, um how many does the usa have 13 plus the smaller ones. So yea you can have one or 2 but you woulnt get lucky more than once or twice.

Your gona send 13 or more carriers into range of one of the most advanced airforces in the world and leave your entire coastline unguarded and remove all power projection across the world.....right.....


Originally posted by shortmanx5
have the harriers taken out any f-18s, f-16s,f-22,etc i didnt think so.

F-16s and F-22's dont work on carriers


They might get lucky and take one down, depends on the situation but no I doubt it, hence why they're now A2G planes and leave the air defence to the destroyers.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by shortmanx5
The sub would have to get close enough first, and ok say you take out 1 or 2, um how many does the usa have 13 plus the smaller ones. So yea you can have one or 2 but you woulnt get lucky more than once or twice.

Your gona send 13 or more carriers into range of one of the most advanced airforces in the world and leave your entire coastline unguarded and remove all power projection across the world.....right.....


Originally posted by shortmanx5
have the harriers taken out any f-18s, f-16s,f-22,etc i didnt think so.

F-16s and F-22's dont work on carriers


They might get lucky and take one down, depends on the situation but no I doubt it, hence why they're now A2G planes and leave the air defence to the destroyers.


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]


I know f-16 and f-22 dont land on aircraft carriers, i was using it as an example. it wouldnt take 13 carriers but its nice to know we have that option. Isnt it?? And yes i would sent them to fight your "advanced airforce" the f-18 would handle any planes you throw at them. its easy to win wars when countries fight with less advanced versions of the weapons you have.



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I don't know about you but if I was a US Navy admiral I sure as hell wouldn’t look forward to a fight Royal Navy and RAF. Also don't count out the UK sub force, their crew training is exceptional and they have very capable subs. IMO its really a moot point to compare the two navies but if you are at lest acknowledge that the RN is not a push over.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Mar, 27 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don't know about you but if I was a US Navy admiral I sure as hell wouldn’t look forward to a fight Royal Navy and RAF. Also don't count out the UK sub force, their crew training is exceptional and they have very capable subs. IMO its really a moot point to compare the two navies but if you are at lest acknowledge that the RN is not a push over.



[edit on 27-3-2006 by WestPoint23]



i agree, there are alot of countries out there we could just run over, i am not saying that it would be easy. But a navial battle would be dominated by the usa and so would an airforce dogfight. you have to look at numbers and quality, we have more and better planes. More and better ships, so i dont see where there is any wiggle room. I am sure anyone would rather fight say irans navy, but how do you beat a countries navy when it has more ships than all other countries. We have 80 planes of a carrier you have 20, once again better numbers and quality.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:16 AM
link   
13 carriers!!!! i dont think so

At any time at least 4 are in dock for a major overhall and half of the operational ones will be in the pacific atleast 30 days away. That leaves 4 or 5 available for any attack.

Besides knowing the RAF and Navy guys i do, they would not see a hostile sky but a target rich environment!



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by shortmanx5
I know f-16 and f-22 dont land on aircraft carriers, i was using it as an example.

Why though? Both those would probably never encounter any fighters this side of the pond.


it wouldnt take 13 carriers but its nice to know we have that option. Isnt it??

See paper plane UK's post.


And yes i would sent them to fight your "advanced airforce" the f-18 would handle any planes you throw at them.

You mean the tornado and eurofighter two of the most advanced aicraft in the world?


its easy to win wars when countries fight with less advanced versions of the weapons you have.

Really? Less advanced huh?
Well then mate hows YOUR less advanced versions of the weapons that WE have?
You know like the stinger, the ARAAM?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Regarding the USS Stark:

I believe that in this case the CIWS was "operational". However, it was not in "red-free" mode where it could automatically detect, track, and engage incoming ASCM threats w/o operator assistance.

The system has manual "firing bolts" l large metal pins that are physically inserted into the mount itself, which prevent the mount from slewing on its own. These pins are typically left in the system unless the ship is at GQ.

Also, the control panel must be set for auto-free engage, which again is almost never done unless you are at GQ with imminent threats in the vicinity. The risk of an auto-engage on a frienldy air unit (or at nothing - like sea clutter for that matter), make it a dicey proposition to set the CIWS to red-free.

The failure of the USS Stark to detect and counter the Iraqi exocets had nothing to do with the technology. The ship was nearly destroyed because the threat to the ship was not taken seriously, the ROE were ill-defined, and the overall readiness of the watchstanders was unacceptable. It was only the fact that the ship was a good design, had sturdy construction techniques, and possessed a crew with superior DC training and zeal in their DC efforts which prevented it from going to the bottom.

I lost a good buddy on that ship, EW3 Charles "Chuck" Moller. Im sad he's gone, but I'm also glad he wasn't the duty EW on watch at the time, who let the exocets slip in undetected.....



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 12:52 PM
link   
There is an article about a ciws missing a silkworm and the rounds hitting another ship


about the RN - PLEASE go read about the year 2003 red flag exercise , when a brit nuke boat sank a us carrier in an exercise - and the AUS boys have done it not once but 4 times in an exercise.


got inside the barrier subs , infact if the *stories* are true , crossed the bows of an upgraded 688 to then sink the carrier with torps at 3000 yards.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
and the AUS boys have done it not once but 4 times in an exercise.


Yep we're damn good. Last exercise our subs participated in with the Americans, they cheated. They had 3 helos on our sub even before the exercise started, whilst it was surfaced. NOt only that they were using active pinging so they would make no mistakes in losing contact.
However we slipped away when a US detroyer came too close



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Well, you have to remember the Australians use diesel electric subs which can be a pain in the behind to track down, especially if they aren't really doing anything and are just lurking around using batteries. Also, I wouldn't place too much faith in training exercises because they don't always represent realistic war scenarios. Having said that I don't want to minimize the exceptional performance of the RN sub fleet nor that of the Aus navy.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
It used to be an in-joke in navy circles that the RN subs would leave the clyde and then just dissappear (rumours in US circles were that they just sat on the bottom for 3 months because the US subs found it that hard to detect them)



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperplane_uk
It used to be an in-joke in navy circles that the RN subs would leave the clyde and then just dissappear (rumours in US circles were that they just sat on the bottom for 3 months because the US subs found it that hard to detect them)


Which subs were they the Swiftsure Class, never realised they had a reputation for being quiet. On the other hand could the Brits detect the Yanks ?



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I would imagine it was one of the UK boomers, the Vanguard I believe. Ballistic Missile subs are the quietest of the quiet. If theres any boat that could do it, its a SSBN. Correct me if I'm mistaken. I'm not saying that a regular nuke boat couldnt do it, but the quietest subs in a fleet are always the boomers because of their extremely high value.



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 06:46 PM
link   
The german U31 (~500 tons) once had an US carrier in their sights, too. The captain took a periscope photo in shiny daylight during a maneuver and later sent it to the carrier captain with "best regards"

The americans didnt know an Uboat had in- and exfiltrated their carrier group until they had the picture...

[edit on 28/3/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on Mar, 28 2006 @ 07:46 PM
link   
You dont even know if those stories are true, i am sure some are, but if it was that easy to sink then why would everyone be scaried of the us navy. If anyone can sink our ships then why doesnt your country hold the title as the worlds most powerful navy. Its because its not that easy, europe tells it self these things to forgot about there decline in to nothingness. If there was a war i dont think we would have only 4 to 5 carriers out at sea, thats at peace time. At peace time we have more on the ocean than the world has together. I dont think you can Comprehend that, if you did there would be no reason to agrue. I would also like to know how much the usa is out matched in these contests in terms of numbers. I know that some times is like 12 to 2 and all the other countries make it seem like a big deal.





new topics
 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join