Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz

The US will never lose or be in any way destroyed militarily.

They can be "defeated" on other levels, if they take the bait.

IMO

Just a bit more on those waxing lyrical on this bit of kit does this and that does such and such. You do realise none of this has been tested in a live arena with people trying to actually kill the operators dont you.

In the IT world there is a common phrase. The more spectacular the system the more spectacular the failure.

I do not mean the systems will fail but until tested in a live arena no one knows what will happen. DO NOT put your faith in untried tech. These things are sold to the military by the cheapest bidder to make that company money. Not something I would want to trust my life on.

reply to post by princeofpeace


I would say military demographics are very on topic, seeing as the OP was comparing military strengths and weakness.

Originally posted by wrkn4livn

Originally posted by sweetnlow
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

Carriers and support ships have Phalyanx. It's a last line of defense but it looks pretty effective. Ive seen it in action and video's of it taking out super-sonic surface missiles. It would be ugly for sure but those carriers are awfully big. It would probably take more than one missile and the ship that fired it would be gone probably before the missile every hit the carrier.

The US Navy has tested the Phalanx against 5 inch gun rounds and taken them out
and A land based variant known as C-RAM has recently been deployed in a short range missile defense role, to counter incoming rockets and artillery fire.
en.wikipedia.org...
Four of the C-RAM trailers could be put on a carrier flight deck for added protection.

Originally posted by randomname
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)

Here is some of the carnage of the Falklands war of 1982:

HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.
ATLANTIC CONVEYOR - mortally damaged north east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and later sank in tow.
RFA SIR GALAHAD - mortally damaged off Fitzroy by bombs from A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 and burnt out. Later in June towed out to sea and sunk as a war grave.
RFA Sir Tristram - badly damaged off Fitzroy in same attack and abandoned, but later returned to UK and repaired.
LCU F4, HMS Fearless - sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5.
HMS Glamorgan - damaged off Stanley by land-based Exocet missile.

Originally posted by murch
Just a bit more on those waxing lyrical on this bit of kit does this and that does such and such. You do realise none of this has been tested in a live arena with people trying to actually kill the operators dont you.

In the IT world there is a common phrase. The more spectacular the system the more spectacular the failure.

I do not mean the systems will fail but until tested in a live arena no one knows what will happen. DO NOT put your faith in untried tech. These things are sold to the military by the cheapest bidder to make that company money. Not something I would want to trust my life on.

Read up.

Many of the systems commented on in this thread have been combat tested, like the Phalanx CIWS And Sea Dart systems.

Sounds like someone wants to coax someone into thinking they can attack, nobody see this no?


Would be so funny watching speed boat trying to attack a US Navy fleet


I bet Iran is preparing the speedboat fleet right now lol

i'm sure we could find a way to send a big ass wave in their general direction.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Star and flag for you. I just hope that the warmongers and and armchair warriors must realise that combat can actually take some strange turns. It is not over till it is over. Arrogance in war is not good at all in the theatre of war.

reply to post by banishedfromthisarea
The Brits re-thought their warship designs after the Falklands War.

Those ships were built with extensive use of alloys to make them lighter, and they found out that those alloys tend to burn. They went back to steel.

Fleet Officers are always gaming various scenarios. I have no idea what this one was, it was likely a open ended sea engagement over a span of days. Bear in mind no fuel was burned and no ships were moving but it was a computer simulation, kind of like a video game but with crappy graphics.

US Navy Fleet Officers are highly intelligent, well trained and adaptable. In large measure this can be attributable to the amount of time they spend doing simulations, such as the one described. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Each time you play, you learn, adapt and try to overcome.

Depending on the extant of the theater, the carrier may have been required to provide its own combat air patrol (CAP). This would be difficult if you are in range of shore batteries and surrounded by fast movers with ASM's. In a real world event the US would have land bases in the MED to provide the CAP, while the Naval F-16's fried or bombed the eyes and ears of the enemy. There is no doubt that fast movers with ASM's would be a threat to a carrier but noneffective against a carrier group. The carrier would be picketed by escorts that would be more than able to eliminate surface threats from way far away, like the next time zone away. Forget about it.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL

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

Wrong. And this is hardly a conspiracy.

The below video illustrates the success of lasers in an open ocean environment. the laser passed with flying colors, and yes, speedboats were also factored in, along with UAVs, and missiles.


Also, your thread title is ignorant and quite presumptive. The US carrier fleet is armed to the teeth with offensive capabilities. The Aegis ABM is highly effective at countering missile threats, not to mention the USN virginia class attack subs, The F18s, Phalanx, and a host of ABM missiles. We're talking about several billions of dollars being invested into the USN. They do not send these expensive ships all around the world in hostile areas to be completely defenseless. They are well equipped to handle all types of combat scenarios.

Iran has gone up against the USN in the past, it resulted in the entire decimation of their naval forces in the course of an entire afternoon. Speed boats a threat? lmao then I guess the soviets were stupid for trying to field a naval capability similar to the Americans...hell the chinese too! All that they needed were speedboats!

Originally posted by princeofpeace
Ummm no-the title of the thread is "Why the US navy will be destroyed in Hormuz".

The USS John Stennis is NOT the US navy. It is indeed a PART of the Navy, but is not the US Navy. OP needs to change the title then if this is not what is meant but they have failed to do so after being called out numerous times so we can only infer that his title stands as to his belief.

Actually........

Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz
And Basing this claim as actual fact,based on a scenario,a war game, is preposterous really.



Here three scenarios that I will not claim as fact,that I can claim America will try to do their best to analyze,and that there are more then one way to deal with them.

1. Collapse of Pakistan
2. Rise of militant China
3. Collapse of North Korea

Pentagon planners have plenty to deal with these days – Iran in search of nuclear-weapons technology, suicide bombings in Afghanistan, and the final pullout of US troops in Iraq potentially leaving behind a security vacuum in the Middle East. But in war games in Washington this week, US Army officials and their advisers debated three nightmare scenarios in particular. Here are the doomsday visions that Pentagon planners have been poring over:

Doomsday war games: Pentagon's 3 nightmare scenarios

Could any of these really happen? You bet.
I wouldn't stake my "professional" reputation that they will,only that America and the World has many scenarios to deal with.

Basing the OP's "game" as a tell all on Why the US Navy will be destroyed in Hormuz, is like watching a propaganda movie,made by Iranians.

Originally posted by butcherguy

Originally posted by murch
Just a bit more on those waxing lyrical on this bit of kit does this and that does such and such. You do realise none of this has been tested in a live arena with people trying to actually kill the operators dont you.

In the IT world there is a common phrase. The more spectacular the system the more spectacular the failure.

I do not mean the systems will fail but until tested in a live arena no one knows what will happen. DO NOT put your faith in untried tech. These things are sold to the military by the cheapest bidder to make that company money. Not something I would want to trust my life on.

Read up.

Many of the systems commented on in this thread have been combat tested, like the Phalanx CIWS And Sea Dart systems.

Yep glad you mentioned it. Significant damage to ship that used it. Dead civilian instructor. Great system. Phalanx CIWS takes a fast moving target and splits into many fast moving targets at close quarters. Sea Dart is obselete now and its alternative has no surface capability.

As a member of the Biggest, Baddest, most technologically advanced Navy in the world - I can tell you that we will crush any adversary presented. Plain and simple. Gorilla tactics or not, we will crush them and there isn't anything they can do about it.

Time and again our Country's Navy has been tested, and come out on top. Japan thought they had us when they bombed Battleship row, and we showed them what American perseverance, ingenuity, and bravery can do in WWII, Midway and the battle of Guadalcanal.

Yes, we have had some embarrassing conflicts - I won't deny that. But when push comes to shove and life and liberty are on the line (WWI, WWII) America comes out on top - we have a proven track record to do what it takes to win the battle. No one can contest us on this, despite the tragic outcomes (Hiroshima, Nagasaki). I have personally been to ground zero in Nagasaki, and I can tell you it was a sobering experience, but you can rest assured that America and her might are not to be trifled with.

America is BY FAR the most incredible military force the world has ever seen. Bar none. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Its just that there are a LOT of folks on here who are jealous of the US and its power and will use any excuse/attempt they can to try to bash the US.

Its just the way of ATS!!!

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Well...war games are nothing compared to real war...we get a lot braver knowing we can walk away from the scenario....and 2nd...we probably have quite a lot of tech that has never even been seen yet. We haven't had the need to bring out the big tech yet..I'm not saying any military is indestructible but man...i've worked with several different militaries around the world and id put my money on the US Navy over any other Navy in the world. Its not just our ships...its our satellites....our experience...there are so many variables...and hell I don't even like Navy pukes that much since I was Army haha...but man id rather have them on my side any day. I think we haven't even seen the true power of the US Military..maybe just a few ignorant generals.

Originally posted by bigyin

Please don't be ridiculous ... a carrier doing 70 mph

Top speed of a Nimitz Class is 30 knots or 34 mph

Just Wiki s a source on max carrier speeds? I was once stationed on the USS America. A non-nuclear carrier older than I was. It was capable of higher speeds than that. I know from being on duty in engineering as the electrical load dispatcher during a "speed run". We definitely exceeded 30 knots.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


first off, watch your phrasing. You say the "U.S. Navy" when you are talking about a single carrier group. The destruction of a single carrier group does not constitute the complete annihilation of the U.S. Navy.

Second, you logic involving a carrier groups impotence without it's carrier is flawed. The test in question did not discuss the possibility of a submarine. Speedboats would be ill equipped to take down a submarine, especially if it was armed with nuclear weapons. The sub only needs to rise for a few seconds to fire off those nukes, which Iran would have no time to counter.

Third, have a good New years eve and don't get too hammered.