It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 17
58
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:24 PM
link   
i chuckle to myself when i see you folks posting about using nukes.

No country has the balls to launch a nuke just willy nilly. Truman did it back when we were the only ones with the weapon but, not today. I see it as a weapon of last resort and last resort means when we are about to lose a war big time.




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


I don't want war, far from it but let's face it, the US navy and I mean ALL the US navy against the iranian navy = US navy wins hands down.

Edit: Some of you are speaking as though the US navy would sit back and allow them to attack them to attack them...

edit on 31/12/11 by David291 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:33 PM
link   
It's unlikely that Iran could do more than make an initial hit on one of our ships. After the initial hit the whole fleet would go on high alert and then not even a conventional missile could hit them. It would take a very large hit to disable one of our battleships and the aircraft carriers are the most protected of ships. Iran is no better than Iraq was prior to the Iraqi war and they would be as easily defeated. The difference is that China and Russia might make a move, in which case we might take nuclear hits, but we still win even with Russia and China in the mix.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


You don't see the flaws in having Marine Generals(land commanders) deploying and commanding a Navy Fleet?

And you seem to have left out that it was computer simulation.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:35 PM
link   
Of course the USA will win hands down. In fact it won't even be a contest at all, unless iran acquires nukes and uses them to decimate the middle east. That is why it is important to stop their nuclear program as soon as possible and for russia/china to get a grip.

Only a russian and chinesse alliance has any possibility of stoping the usa.

[off-topic commentary removed]
edit on 12/31/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: [off-topic commentary removed]



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by David291
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


I don't want war, far from it but let's face it, the US navy and I mean ALL the US navy against the iranian navy = US navy wins hands down.

Edit: Some of you are speaking as though the US navy would sit back and allow them to attack them to attack them...

edit on 31/12/11 by David291 because: (no reason given)


As far as i'm aware we are talking about one or maybe two carrier groups.

Getting the entire US Navy into the Gulf would be a miracle, not to mention a Turkey shoot, gotta have some room to move them big boats around.
Besides that, many ships are in maintenance cycles, you just cant get the entire US Navy at any time.

Cosmic..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
These American haters
are underestimating the power
of the USA military/navy.

This thread is proof of blind
hate filled with ignorance.

People hate America so much they make
up feel good fantasies in there head (much like this thread)
making them feel good that something bad might happen
to America, when in reality America has her problems but
there is still to date no army on earth that could beat America
in a all out war. The US NAVY will be just fine in the straight.

The dangerous leader of IRAN is sending his navy on a suicide
mission.. GOOD BYE IRAN (if you close international shipping lanes)

Why so much hatred for America?
Oh, I forgot it is jealousy.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   
NATO's counter alliance is the SCO which happens to have BOTH Russia and China as full fledged members and Iran as an observer.

A conventional war between the 2 sides would be a stalemate which is why tactical nukes tip the scales in favour of whoever launches them first or last.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Cosmic4life
 


Maybe that is the case but there is also the US airforce and they would also have to get through whatever else is protecting the carriers, which I think would be an hard job for them.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by wlord
i chuckle to myself when i see you folks posting about using nukes.

No country has the balls to launch a nuke just willy nilly. Truman did it back when we were the only ones with the weapon but, not today. I see it as a weapon of last resort and last resort means when we are about to lose a war big time.


It is not about "having the guts". It is about being stupid enough to use them. I am not anti-nuclear technology at all, but is being harnassed as a weapon of mass destruction of humans against humans, rather than space applications or beneficial uses on earth.

Anything when used appropriately becomes a tool.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


"If the US loses its carriers it would be unable to destroy iran."

Did you mean carrier or carriers?
If (and that is a really big if), one carrier is destroyed, it doesn't mean the US military is crippled. Where do you get that assumption?



"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. "

I thought about it, you know there would be support from the Air Force or other military assets such as the CIA, NSA.. An naval skirmish would mean basically a all out war. Electronic countermeasures and jamming, fighters and bombers you have to factor in the equation along with. Those men basically know on the speedboats that its a one way trip, to be truly honest I really don't see them getting close to carriers.

Here is a good read,
www.wired.com...

I just hope goodies from Area51 get revealed, I'm freaking excited.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
reply to post by popsmayhem
 


At least make a new post instead of cut and pasting your previous one.

Make an effort mate.

Are you an American or a Klingon ? by the way, it's just hard to tell with your smash smash rhetoric.

Failure to recognize your chosen enemy is defending their homeland is seriously underestimating their capacity for tenacity.

Cosmic..



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:46 PM
link   
the Strait of Hormuz is literaly inside Iran borders
im pretty sure they have prepare a lot of scenarios
to close and defend that position against small and big armies
wonder why they had a 10 days training recently

They have the HIGH GROUND in every directions
hundreds of missile boat hidden in many point along the strait
and thousand of ballistic missile ready to be launched
all with the help of Iran Russia and China

Iran will close the strait for the USA and other different Nato allied
China will still be able to travel through it

its about time Iran play that card .. sanction against sanctions .. fair to me
im even very surprise they didnt play it before
that might mean someone in Russia or China have given them the green light
to be backed up in case US try to unclose it

I know the USA have a big modern armada warship fleet
but draw them in a place like this .. perfect place to kill the wolfs
much better then in a big open field
Iran will have the advantage and i think they know about it
edit on 12/31/2011 by Ben81 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by popsmayhem
These American haters
are underestimating the power
of the USA military/navy.

This thread is proof of blind
hate filled with ignorance.

People hate America so much they make
up feel good fantasies in there head (much like this thread)
making them feel good that something bad might happen
to America, when in reality America has her problems but
there is still to date no army on earth that could beat America
in a all out war. The US NAVY will be just fine in the straight.

The dangerous leader of IRAN is sending his navy on a suicide
mission.. GOOD BYE IRAN (if you close international shipping lanes)

Why so much hatred for America?
Oh, I forgot it is jealousy.

For starters...It's a STRAIT...ok?
Secondly, one can question battle tactics and simple rationale without hating America...even as an American!
How about you tell us why Iran is any less dangerous than...oh, I don't know...say Israel? How about Pakistan? Maybe Saudi Arabia, where...we are told...the 911 attackers were drafted and trained? How about North Korea...wait, they have a nuke or two...can't bully them any more.

Please...as a new member, if you're gonna post, give us more than rhetoric and bombast.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
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.


Fanciful post. I highly doubt you were ever in the Navy. If you were, you should be ashamed of you knowledge regarding equipment and ordinance. I acutally was stationed on a CVN carrier for six years. The idea that a carrier can travel at "70 mph...no problem" is laughable. Modern carriers are quite fast for their size, the ship I was on the John C. Stennis CVN-74 is capable of 38 knots at full steam. Also, destroyers are designed and equipped to attack submarines not surface craft. The role you speak of is that of a guided missile cruiser. One thing you did not mention that anyone who REALLY served on a carrier would have focused on is the main armament of a carrier that is the...ummm...jet aircraft. The .50 cal. machine guns you really liked talking about are probably really fun to shoot in the video games you play. Again, you should be ashamed of misrepresenting yourself as a vet. If you are a vet you should be even more ashamed. The galley cooks I served with had their facts more straight than you do.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
This place runs rampant with idiocy!!!

So the US is going to put their entire navy in the straight? Are you freaking kidding me? This wont fit!!!


en.wikipedia.org...

Commissioned
Ship Name Hull No. Class Type Homeport[2]
Comment
USS Abraham Lincoln
CVN-72 Nimitz
Aircraft carrier
Everett, WA
[3]

USS Alabama
SSBN-731 Ohio
Ballistic missile submarine
Bangor, WA
[4]

USS Alaska
SSBN-732 Ohio
Ballistic missile submarine
Kings Bay, GA
[5]

USS Albany
SSN-753 Los Angeles
Attack submarine
Norfolk, VA
[6]

USS Albuquerque
SSN-706 Los Angeles
Attack submarine
San Diego, CA
[7]

USS Alexandria
SSN-757 Los Angeles
Attack submarine
Groton, CT
[8]

USS Annapolis
SSN-760 Los Angeles
Attack submarine
Groton, CT
[9]

USS Antietam
CG-54 Ticonderoga
Cruiser
San Diego, CA
[10]

USS Anzio
CG-68 Ticonderoga
Cruiser
Norfolk, VA
[11]

USS Ardent
MCM-12 Avenger
Mine countermeasures ship
[12]

USS Arleigh Burke
DDG-51
Arleigh Burke
Destroyer
Norfolk, VA
[13]

USS Asheville
SSN-758 Los Angeles
Attack submarine
San Diego, CA
[14]

USS Ashland
'___'-48 Whidbey Island
Dock landing ship
Little Creek, VA
[15]

... et al



edit on 12/31/2011 by 12m8keall2c because: clipped quoted content, provided source link AND required external source tags



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by mantisfortress
 


Just curious, but are all carriers exactly the same?? Could the one he speaks of be different than the one you are talking about?
edit on 31-12-2011 by jhn7537 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by MrStyx
 


Umm, Vietnam?

We won damned near every battle, but still lost the war.

Technology alone doesn't win, especially if the command structure is built upon politically connected officers as opposed to professional skeptics.

I fear too much of the US military leadership falls into the the former as opposed to the latter group.

The Sunburn missiles and their descendants are no joke. sure a carrier group could probably knock down a high percentage of the missiles fired at them if all systems are up and operational.

But there's the rub, two of them actually.

First, the up and operational one: if I'm the Iranians, my first strike consists of several EMPs detonated by a small suicide boats in the dark of night, disguised as fishing vessels or some other innocuous craft that would attract attention but not necessarily response before it was too late. The point wouldn't be to eliminate but degrade.

This would then be followed by a massive launch of hundreds of cruise missiles, say 50% of available stock. The Persian Gulf is tiny by cruise missile speeds: the Sunburn does Mach 2.1, meaning that from launch to impact is only 4 to 6 minutes. That isn't much time to process the situation and react to it. The first missiles would be striking the closest ships in something like one or two minutes if sea launched.

The second rub is knocking down most of them.

Say 300 missiles were launched and you got 95% of them. That means 15 missiles got through. How many ships of the carrier group would be left?

A second wave of 100 missiles would certainly have a higher percentage getting through, say 10-20%. an additional 10 to 20 missile hits would probably sink the majority of the group or leave it hors de combat, i.e. out of action for months or years.

If the EMP strike was even marginally successful, the percentages might well be higher, say 10-15% of the first strike getting through....30 to 45 Sunburn hits would certainly put paid to the carrier group. The subs would still be there, but pretty much all else would be useless wreckage or sunk.

What came after for the Iranians wouldn't be pretty, and eventually we would retake the straights, but at what cost?

Losing a carrier group or two would have the same effect as Varus' loss of the legions in the Teutoburger Wald: a mark of the end of the empire's expansion, and the beginning of the collapse. Despite what some might think we lack the skills and infrastructure, as well as the money, to replace the lost group easily or quickly.

So from the Iranians point of view it might be worth the gamble, and might just have a decent chance of success.

One of the problems with our military and the way it is used today stems from having a very poorly defined definition of what constitutes "success", and that's without factoring in the other guy's definition.

Could we lose a carrier strike group?

Of course we could.

To think otherwise is to partake of fantasy.

Is it likely?

That depends upon factors too problematical to want to take the risk unnecessarily. But as long as we assume it is impossible, the more likely it is it will happen.
edit on 31-12-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-12-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Oh you meant carriers? The US has 11. ELEVEN. E-FEAKING-LEVEN!!!!! Two more under construction.

Active Enterprise-class carriers:
Enterprise (CVN-65)

Active Nimitz-class carriers:
Nimitz (CVN-68)
Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69)
Carl Vinson (CVN-70)
Theodore Roosevelt (CVN-71)
Abraham Lincoln (CVN-72)
George Washington (CVN-73)
John C. Stennis (CVN-74)
Harry S. Truman (CVN-75)
Ronald Reagan (CVN-76)
George H.W. Bush (CVN-77)

Under construction

Under-construction Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carriers:
Gerald R. Ford (CVN-78)
John F. Kennedy (CVN-79)



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 14  15  16    18  19  20 >>

log in

join