Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

page: 2
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:05 AM
link   
reply to post by area6
 


So do you think it is ok to risk losing a carrier battle group over Irans supposed nuke? Just because some report states that they are doing it without evidence.

Heck lets say that only one small ship is taken out, it may not be a carrier, would you want any US Navy ship destroyed? Is it worth it to you?




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Fitch303
 




So a computer game is evidence lol gtfo.


It was not a computer game dude, it was a real live battle exercise using real people and carriers and ships etc... Did you even read what I posted?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:11 AM
link   
reply to post by area6
 





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?


China has one carrier that they bought unfinished from the Rooskies and they have it sailing but not yet figured out how to launch and recover aircraft from it.

Varyag



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:12 AM
link   
This is what happend last time the US and Iranian forces engaged in a naval battle. I believe it took place on April 18, 1988

en.wikipedia.org...


By the end of the operation, American ships and aircraft had damaged Iranian naval and intelligence facilities on two inoperable oil platforms in the Persian Gulf, and sunk at least three armed Iranian speedboats, one Iranian frigate and one fast attack gunboat. One other Iranian frigate was damaged in the battle.[8] Sabalan was repaired in 1989 and has since been upgraded, and is still in service with the Iranian navy. In short, Iran lost one major warship and a smaller gunboat. Damage to the oil platforms was eventually repaired and they are now back in service.



The U.S. side suffered two casualties: the aircrew of a Marine Corps AH-1T Sea Cobra helicopter gunship. The Cobra, attached to the USS Trenton, was flying reconnaissance from the Wainwright and crashed sometime after dark about 15 miles southwest of Abu Musa island.


I dont feel like typing all the units involved, so I took this screenshot from the wiki



That was awhile ago, and I have no doubt both sides have upgraded their technology, but I still believe the US navy will decimate the Iranian navy, unless if the Iranians launch some sort of sneak attack, and take the US boats by suprise, but I find that highly unlikely



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   
the fault in this premise is that the iranians are as good as the excercise assumes

and that the other arab nations will stand for their goods not getting out

it was a silly comment and an empty threat



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by area6
 


So do you think it is ok to risk losing a carrier battle group over Irans supposed nuke? Just because some report states that they are doing it without evidence.

Heck lets say that only one small ship is taken out, it may not be a carrier, would you want any US Navy ship destroyed? Is it worth it to you?


I don't have a dog in this fight. My observation is that Iran's rhetoric is counterproductive to their goals. Yes, some of it is psyops, but much of it is their own.

You can argue they have the right to sell oil in any currency they choose, but is that wise?
You can argue they have the right to develop nuclear power, weapons, whatever, but is that wise?
You can argue they have the right to block the straight, but is that wise?

The games chess, not checkers.

If they played smart they could achieve all their goals.

Maybe ... maybe they could sink a US carrier, but is that wise?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:17 AM
link   





posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


I predict there are new weapons that no one knows about. Some on our side, some on the Russians side, and even the Chinese claim to have some kind of new carrier killer missile. It may be possible to fire these weapons without exposing the responsible party. If the Rooskies send one sub with that special torpedo, and sink our carrier just to test it, how will we know who did it?

Most recent Naval battle was 2008.
Black Sea Battle
edit on 31-12-2011 by kawika because: just cause



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:20 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


There's a flaw in your argument that Iran has the same capability as the scenario. Yes, they have the small craft fleet to identify the U.S. fleet. But, as you compare the scenario to Iran, you neglected the whole "Swarm of cruise missiles." Does Iran really have the capability to use comparable sophisticated cruise missiles? The small craft fleet that Iran has is nothing more than mere unguided missiles that require a close range to be accurate - by that time it's too late.

And besides, the straight is relatively small. I'm sure that the U.S. has a location of active Iranian warships in the Hormuz.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   
You may be on to something, Iran has flying boats. I mean, c'mon, a flying boat, CAN YOU DEAL WITH THAT!?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


Perhaps you should reference some of the more contemporary literature available on the subject.

The whole point of wargaming is to expose flaws within operational doctrine to avoid the kind of catastrophic losses in a real world scenario.

It would be worth noting as well that the asymmetric tactic used by the red force in the millenium 2002 exercise was the textbook response expected from the Soviet navy during the bulk of the cold war so it is a little mind-boggling that anyone with any real knowledge on the subject would consider the news a revelation.


The Navy’s new doctrine should include several related operational concepts for planning and executing future conflicts...

...Only general features of the new concept are publicly known, but its focus seems to be to counter growing challenges to U.S. military power projection in the western Pacific and Persian Gulf. In particular, North Korea; the People’s Republic of China, especially because of its rapidly developing anti-access/area-denial capabilities; and Iran are considered potential threats....

...The new AirSea Battle concept should be focused exclusively on sea control. In addition, the U.S. Navy needs to develop separate but related operational concepts for sea denial, weakening of the enemy’s military-economic potential at sea, and defense and protection of that of the United States and friendly nations.



Primary threats to the U.S. Navy’s surface combatants and military/commercial ships operating in the littorals are land-based heavy bombers and attack aircraft, submarines, and surface combatants armed with antiship cruise missiles, coastal missile and gun batteries, and advanced mines.

In addition, small stealthy surface craft armed with low-technology small-caliber guns, short-range rockets, or even suicide bombs can threaten not only friendly commercial shipping but in some cases also U.S. surface combatants. Medium- and short-range ballistic missiles are a growing threat to U.S. forward bases, command centers, and logistics infrastructure.



In military terms, a concept pertains to the broad methods used by a specific platform, combat arm, or service to accomplish a given military objective. In the U.S. military, the term “operating concept” is used to refer to the application of military power within a certain framework, regardless of the objective to be accomplished. It does not pertain to a specific level of war, and is generic or universal in nature.

In a maritime context, an “operational concept” is designed to employ naval forces and the forces of other services in a major naval or joint operation or campaign. An operational concept is not identical to a concept of operations, as the U.S. Navy often erroneously believes.

A CONOPS is developed for a specific course of action during the commander’s process of assessing the situation and making a decision. Hence, it pertains to a specific location and the specific enemy force..


AirSea Battle Must Not Work Alone



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL


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




If I may quote myself from another thread...

post by Drunkenparrot
 


Originally posted by Drunkenparrot

Originally posted by Clisen33
I like how everyone is getting all upset over the U.S. rolling in some hardware during the 21st century high tech Iranian war games. Has everyone forgotten about the Chinese sub that surfaced in the middle of a U.S. fleet during war games? Of course it was fine - the band wagon here was foaming at the mouth and "knew" that the U.S. fleet had no idea that the sub was there, crippling the all mighty United States of America Navy.

Haters gonna hate...
edit on 29-12-2011 by Clisen33 because: (no reason given)


The haters are gonna hate but what the ATS PLAN fan club seems to overlook were the KittyHawk CVBG's ASW pickett of Los Angeles class 688i and/or Virginia class 774 SSN's positioned in the PLAN Song class Type 039's acoustic shadow with firing solutions plotted for the hot torpedos loaded in their tubes


Furthermore, although there has been very little official commentary on the incident ( the USN priority is maintaining OPSEC ) ...


Adm. Timothy J. Keating, the commander of U.S. Pacific Command, told reporters in Hong Kong on Feb. 18. (2009)...

...He defended a security failure in 2006 when the aircraft carrier battle group led by the USS Kitty Hawk allowed a Chinese submarine to sail undetected within torpedo range of the ship.

"No danger presented to either," he said. "The carrier was in a very relaxed posture. If there were some heightened state of tension, we would, believe me, we would not let them get that close.


Inside the Ring/China intelligence gaps


And...

post by Drunkenparrot
 


Here is my take, appologies for any errors as I have to keep it short...

The PLAN has sure gotten a lot of mileage out of the Type 039 Diesel/Electric boat commander having the intestinal fortitude to surface in the same hemisphere as a CVN battlegroup much less within weapons range.

Although ATS would never be accused of letting the facts get in the way of a good story, I would point out a bit more of the obvious that anyone with a passing interest in the subject should know as well.

The USN SOSUS has had the south pacific wired like a pinball machine for decades. Augmented with relevant SPAWAR system integration and heavily invested with new passive acoustic technology over the last decade with an eye towards containing a modern PLAN SSBN threat it is a safe bet that the USN has better intelligence on the disposition and movements of the PLAN submarine fleet at any given time than the PLAN.

As the SSBN leg of the nuclear triad is where the true balance of global power resides, ASW is one of the most highly classified programs in the military. The USN has a long history of keeping tight lipped in all areas concerning submarine operations. What that means in this context is just because you don't hear about them, the "silent service" of the USN can be depended upon to be on station and one step ahead of any perceived threat.

ASW is one of those technological arenas where the USN has enjoyed overwhelming superiority in all aspects from technology to operational doctrine for a very long time with no intention of allowing any other naval force an opportunity for parity in the foreseeable future.

It is a safe guess to bet that current attack submarine doctrine regarding the PLAN submarine fleet is not all that different from what the USN practiced against the Red Navy during the cold war. The USN attack submarines take advantage of the numerical and technological superiority to pick up the PLAN boats when they sortie and then shadow them without their knowledge for the duration of the PLAN Diesel/Electric submarines endurance (another advantage of the multi trillion dollar USN investment in an all nuclear submarine force) Diesel Electric boats such as the Type 039 do not have the performance or stamina to stalk a U.S. carrier group. The tactics used by a Diesel Electric boat would be more akin to having good intelligence on the Carriers planned movements and then ambushing the carrier within an existing choke-point

Another overlooked factor lost in the sensationalism of the Kitty Hawk vs.Type 039 story is that all U.S. Carrier groups operate with a group of usually 2 to 4 attack submarines in the role of ASW picket.

In a nutshell what it all means is a lot of smack talk over a non event for the USN but a brazen and arguably reckless maneuver by the PLAN sub commander.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


The carriers are getting old and there was some news about the problem of not having enough to cover the gaps between when the old ones retire and the new ones are commissioned. I had lost track of how bad it was but it looks like you found the truth.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by kawika
 





I predict there are new weapons that no one knows about. Some on our side, some on the Russians side, and even the Chinese claim to have some kind of new carrier killer missile. It may be possible to fire these weapons without exposing the responsible party. If the Rooskies send one sub with that special torpedo, and sink our carrier just to test it, how will we know who did it?


Ive heard about the Chinese anti-ship missile and have no doubt that Russia, and the US have similar, if not better, types of that missile. I doubt any of those nations would make their most advanced technology public, and I have no idea if Russia or China have given that same tech to Iran.

If a naval engagement broke out, I think the US subs would first demolish the Iranian frigates and destroyers (maybe even from hundreds of miles away). When it comes to the speedboats though, I dont know enough about sub tech to say they will be able to target each and every one of the speedboats, since they are fast and tiny.
edit on 31-12-2011 by buni11687 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by buni11687
 


The real danger to the carrier is probably from submarines with new and secret weapons just itching to be tested on a real ship. And probably from the Russians, not the Chinese.


+5 more 
posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 


You again?

Half of it WAS computer simulations. Did you even read anything about Millennium Challenge 2002 before you went and posted a topic about it? It was in the first freaking sentence of the Wikipedia which you quoted:




Millennium Challenge 2002 (MC02) was a major war game exercise conducted by the United States armed forces in mid-2002, likely the largest such exercise in history. The exercise, which ran from July 24 to August 15 and cost $250 million, involved both live exercises and computer simulations.


If you want to throw out quotes claiming that it wasn't scripted, I'll send you a page that says it was:

War games rigged? General says Millennium Challenge 02 ‘was almost entirely scripted’
www.armytimes.com...

Of course it's also very convenient of you to ignore OptimusSubprime's post. Someone with actual military experience, who has obviously experienced attacks in REAL LIFE. Not a "war game." Games are NOT war.

Yet you continue to act as if you know the entire arsenal of the modern military by using COMPLETELY outdated internet sources without ANY personal experience. The military, ESPECIALLY Nimitz class carriers, have weapons systems about 10 years ahead of what civilians are capable of. Keep that in mind, and now think about how much CIVILIAN technology has changed since 2002. Technology is always progressing. You seem to have some fetish for the destruction of our military.

Also you DO realize that we have missile defense systems and satellites so sensitive that they could be tracked within the first phase of their launch, correct? It's foolish to think that DC would be that easy of a target.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   





posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by apodictic
 




War games rigged? General says Millennium Challenge 02 ‘was almost entirely scripted’ www.armytimes.com...


IT became scripted AFTER the BLUE TEAM LOST, so that the red team would not win dude. Did you not read what I wrote? It was then that the Red Team Commander resigned because he said it was scripted so that only the USA would win.

Also OptimusSubprime's who you are referring to does not have a higher rank than the Red Team commander and certainly is not as expert otherwise he would have ran the exercises for the Blue team and won. I did not ignore any posts.
edit on 31-12-2011 by THE_PROFESSIONAL because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Logman
 
my best guess is one CVN to Iran the other off to Syria no need for 2 to take on Iran, there would be nothing left of Iran we do need their oil.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by area6

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.

If either Russia or China is getting involved in this, it won't be to save Iran but to finish the US off. So I don't expect them to send their military to protect Iran, but should the US use nuclear weapons against Iran for losing its battle ships, all bets are off. I won't be surprised if a couple of US cities turned to glass themselves, courtesy Russian/Chinese nuclear missiles.

I am most certainly willing to find out if I am wrong





new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join