Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 1
58
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+37 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:33 PM
link   
Bigger is better? So says the USA, the basic fallacy that the science of war equates to the art of war. Oh how naive are we Americans. Did anyone remember Millennium Challenge 2002?

Well Iran has built its naval arsenal on speedboats with missiles, and here is how it will be played out according to US war games simulation:



en.wikipedia.org...

Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.[1]


Let me get that straight, One aircraft carrier destroyed, ten cruisers, and five amphibious ships? The Red teams commander was told that it doesn't count because the enemy won and they restarted the game with a scripted war and Commander Paul K. Van Riper quit because it was rigged.

It seems to me that there are a lot of war mongers here saying that the US navy is untouchable, let this be a lesson that we may sustain some losses, maybe not a carrier but a few small ships.

Also do we remember the Chinese sub popping up inside a wargame scenario? What a Face palm

This is the Red Teams Commander making a statement:



Was the game rigged? There were accusations that Millennium Challenge was rigged. I can tell you it was not. It started out as a free-play exercise, in which both Red and Blue had the opportunity to win the game. However, about the third or fourth day, when the concepts that the command was testing failed to live up to their expectations, the command then began to script the exercise in order to prove these concepts. This was my critical complaint. You might say, "Well, why didn't these concepts live up to the expectations?" I think they were fundamentally flawed in that they leaned heavily on technology. They leaned heavily on systems analysis of decision-making.

edit on 30-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)









edit on 31/12/2011 by Sauron because: - internal quote tags to external quote tags




posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:37 PM
link   
no aircraft carrier can withstand a missile assault. the truth is aircraft carriers haven't been tested seriously in war since ww2, when anti-ship missile technology didn't exist.

edit on 30-12-2011 by randomname because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


We can level Iran to the moon,but there is no point in these pointless wars that the TPTB is fighting for world domination. Russia is no pushover that TPTB should understand after the Hitler debacle.Plus Russia is armed with as good or possibly even better.It is suicidal that the TPTB is pushing endlessly for war. People in the West need to overthrow the TPTB else they will be dead in ww3 which is coming at full speed.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:40 PM
link   
I had forgotten about that war game scenario. Thanks for posting.

Relying on formulated predictability of the unpredictable will be the Achilles heel of the arrogant.

edit on 30-12-2011 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)


+26 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:41 PM
link   
The US Navy has 11 carriers which means 11 battle groups. Only one group is in that location so I doubt the US Navy will be destroyed.


+2 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Fitch303
 


LMAO, two are in dry dock under going refuling and many others supporting other missions. The US Navy in the strait would undergo heavy losses. I am talking about the one in the strait, not worldwide dude. Do you have evidence to counter my claim other than "uh no it wont"


+43 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:46 PM
link   
1 CSG destroyed does not equal "US Navy destoyed".

It does equal 600,000 square miles of Iranian glass.

Think it's worth it?


+14 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
reply to post by area6
 


Why would the US destroy Iran if they lost the carriers fair and square? If the US loses its carriers it would be unable to destroy iran. The carrier is what is used for destroying places and once you destroy the carrier, the US would be impotent. Think about that for a second. Also I said it will destroy the US Navy in Hormuz, I did not say elsewhere.




It does equal 600,000 square miles of Iranian glass.


Do you have a war game scenario that can provide backup evidence for this statement?
edit on 30-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)





Think it's worth it?


You think its worth it losing a carrier group for a supposed nuclear weapon that you have no proof of?
edit on 30-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)


+35 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:53 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


You know Iran will be destroyed if they sink a US carrier. To think otherwise or to think the means to do so are not there is naive.

So I'll ask again ... do you think it's worth it?



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
The US navy could just retool the Wisconsin with phalyanx systems and load nukes in the cruise missile pods and nuke warheads for the guns and by itself retire IRAN


+98 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Having done 6 deployments to the Persian Gulf, all on carriers, I can assure you that Iran's speed boats are no match for the 25 .50 cal mounts, the minimum of 4 SH-60 Seahawk Helicopters with .50 cal, GAU-17 miniguns and Hellfire missiles, the destroyers with the same weapons capability, Tomahawks, Harpoons, and torpedoes. If I had a dime for every time an Iranian speedboat made a run at my ship I would be a rich man. It is almost impossible to sink a Nimitz class carrier. Bottom line is that Iran is no match for the U.S. Navy. Oh, I almost forgot... an aircraft carrier, as a last resort, can outrun a speedboat. A Nimitz Class carrier can reach speeds in excess of 70 mph with no problem. Also, if I had a dime for every time Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz I would be very rich. This is nothing new... in fact this news story made me yawn, and so does the "analysis" provided in the OP.



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
So, maybe we have to get the old ones out of mothballs and fix them up.



Yea Chief, I know your retired. Can you be there Tuesday...

Aw crap...

Ever heard of the Kirsk. Sort of a Soviet 9-11.

Kirsk site

Better stuff on you-tube, The story goes that the Rooskies were demonstrating a new topedo that could vaporize the water in its path as it went and thus go really fast and impact with very high energy. Maybe one of our subs sunk it to prevent the demonstration. We denied it but ended up BUYING THEM A NEW SUB...
edit on 31-12-2011 by kawika because: added stuff



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:56 PM
link   
reply to post by area6
 





You know Iran will be destroyed if they sink a US carrier


Russia is saying dont mess with Iran, if iran gets invaded it couuld go nuclear. If the US loses a carrier, it was fair game. If the US tries to destroy irans mainland expect DC to get nuked and NYC. Do you think it is worth having NYC and DC nuked over irans supposed nuclear weapons?

Also if the US navy attacked iran, of course Iran would take them out. Do you really expect Iran to idly sit by and take a beating by the US Navy? Of course Iran would think it is worth it if the US attacks them.


+16 more 
posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by OptimusSubprime
 


You obviously missed my first post in this thread. They already tried your scenario and lost the entire battle group. They tried everything you said and still lost.

Are you saying that you tried this war game scenario where you were the commander and you won? Please provide evidence that your scenario worked. Otherwise you just failed.
edit on 31-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 30 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
reply to post by area6
 


and what if iranian agents unleash chimera viruses in the West after that?It would lead to an extinction level event after that.


+1 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
To be frank- the simulation was in 2002- which means in 10 years time since, I am sure the USN has worked out the bugs.
The carrier group fights with not only ships but a myriad of aircraft, and these will certainly help out, the scenario is interesting, and a big ship may get crippled, but the Battle group won't the USN is not a bunch of untested amateurs, this is not unknown technology, this would bring the hurt.
I have much family who served in Iraq/Afghanistan/Serbia/ Bosnia and there is crap the military has, no official news media has any idea exists, there is some trick stuff, it isn't just big boats and big guns.
there have been missteps in the US foreign policy in the past administrations, but I have full faith in what this country is aiming to accomplish and how they do it, I am not a sheep, but I am invested in the land I live in in my neighbors and family and simply I believe in what they can accomplish when the goal is set.
..


+7 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Russia is saying dont mess with Iran, if iran gets invaded it couuld go nuclear. If the US loses a carrier, it was fair game. If the US tries to destroy irans mainland expect DC to get nuked and NYC. Do you think it is worth having NYC and DC nuked over irans supposed nuclear weapons?

Also if the US navy attacked iran, of course Iran would take them out. Do you really expect Iran to idly sit by and take a beating by the US Navy? Of course Iran would think it is worth it if the US attacks them.


Russia isn't going to war over Iran. China has more to lose if Iran is destroyed ... and here's the deal ... where are they?

If anyone was going to come to Iran's aid they would have forces in and around the gulf now doing joint exercises and making a show of force. Making a show of solidarity.

It ain't happening.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by fiorano
 





To be frank- the simulation was in 2002- which means in 10 years time since, I am sure the USN has worked out the bugs.


There is no evidence that they worked the bugs out, in fact the opposite is true:



I think they're very shallow. They are fundamentally flawed. They have no true intellectual content. And yet they're being, in my view, foisted on our operational commanders.


www.pbs.org...

From the Commander himself.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   


The carrier is what is used for destroying places


Uh, I think that ICBM's and nukes from air force planes and submarines would do the trick.


+14 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by Fitch303
 


LMAO, two are in dry dock under going refuling and many others supporting other missions. The US Navy in the strait would undergo heavy losses. I am talking about the one in the strait, not worldwide dude. Do you have evidence to counter my claim other than "uh no it wont"



Well then fix your title because it's misleading. You're evidence that the US navy in that area will be destroyed is a battle simulation??? LMAO. So a computer game is evidence lol gtfo.

Operation Praying Mantis.......





new topics

top topics



 
58
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join