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: 23
58
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   
LMAO! Anyone who is foolish enough to believe that The United States of America doesn't have a Nuclear armed Sub lurking in Hurmuz right now is gravely mistaken. ~SheopleNation




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

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


True story brotha! 30 knots is the unclassified speed and I can attest as well to how fast a carrier can actually travel. I have first hand seen the Nimitz leave behind her small boys during the conflict in 2003. Thank you for your service as well shipmate.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:13 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:15 PM
link   
The key to military victory is adaptaion, if you can adapt quickly to an enemys tactics faster than they can adapt to yours, you will always have the upper hand. Ths US military can adapt faster to its enemys tactics than our enemys can adapt to the US military tactics. Its not only a game of better weapons, and thats the secret to the success in what the US military has done over the years.

The key elements to adaptation is, resources, and budget. If you have both to almost an unlimited amount you can constantly change how you work your military for what conflict. This is what maks the US so powerful when it come to its military.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:23 PM
link   
So just cause we think the US will win means were war mongers?? And this thread is a joke, US Navy will destroy Iran, if not their airforce will.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Let's just stop wasting time bickering and put it to rest right now. Whip 'em out and get the measuring tape.
edit on 12/31/2011 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)

edit on 12/31/2011 by yadda333 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

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


True story brotha! 30 knots is the unclassified speed and I can attest as well to how fast a carrier can actually travel. I have first hand seen the Nimitz leave behind her small boys during the conflict in 2003. Thank you for your service as well shipmate.


yeah... as a bos'n mate we actually turned that baby up... I believe the meter read 90 knots? once you hit 65 or higher those older ships get a lil ticky

oh yeah... I was on the USS Nassau LHA4 2nd biggest ship to the carrier, commissioned in '79 and we hit 70 knots daily while underway
edit on 31-12-2011 by MikhailBakunin because: (no reason given)

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



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   
reply to post by murch
 

The dead civilian instructor was from an incident that happened during testing.... Not combat.

During combat, rounds from the Phalanx dropped on a vessel after striking the missile it was engaging, which was finished off by (an obsolescent) Sea Dart. Darned obsolete missiles making kills on a Silkworm missile in combat. Good thing they are obsolete, they worked. I suppose that they phased them out for a slingshot, eh?



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:38 PM
link   
SERIOUSLY ATS. I replied to a post by a member where I had went to far in insulting them on context of post related to op. They quite rightly pointed out it was maybe a step to far for forum discussion and I then apologise in a post to demonstrate more of what this world needs.

Contrition and forgiveness. Cant help but think you would help the cause more by letting these public apologies be seen.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
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


Modern day Vietnam really. Bigger isn't always better, it's all down to tactics and the only tactic America has is "Fire everything!" beyond that they tend to lose a lot of good men trying to figure what the hell to do.
edit on 31-12-2011 by Bys0n because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by murch
SERIOUSLY ATS. I replied to a post by a member where I had went to far in insulting them on context of post related to op. They quite rightly pointed out it was maybe a step to far for forum discussion and I then apologise in a post to demonstrate more of what this world needs.

Contrition and forgiveness. Cant help but think you would help the cause more by letting these public apologies be seen.
Igave you a star for trying!

I better get on topic, or they'll yank this post.......

Iran will have their hands full if they mine the Strait of Hormuz, try to block or blockade it. IMHO.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
OK I am annoyed by this. I was joining in this discussion and had some interaction with another member that has been deleted as off topic. HOW can it be off topic. I have interacted with that member through this topic. I wanted to apologise to that member as in retrospect I thought I had taken his comment in the wrong light.

Both comments are now flagged off topic. They were not. This topic generated those feelings and passions. HOW can that be off topic.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 07:53 PM
link   
Forums are for interaction and the exchange of opinions. If you contribute to a thread and reply to others you have the right to retract what you say. I have someone out there who thinks worse off me because you have not let me apologise in the context of this subject. This is in direct opposition into what you say you believe ATS. Freedom to change opinion and be swayed by another.

Reinstate these short and inoffensive posts.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:01 PM
link   
reply to post by murch
 
U2U the member, at least they will get your message.

And if Iran thinks they can whip the USN, I am sure there are plenty of sailors on US ships that will be happy to oblige them.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL
 

aircraft carriers don't need to be anywhere near their target, that is their primary strength. they are mobile airports that allow us to project air superiority to areas otherwise out of range. they can go park at safe distance somewhere far away in the persian gulf or arabian sea and then we get to find out how some iranian speedboats with some cold war era missiles fare against a squadron of f-22 raptors.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 


Hi zeeon!!

I have been following this thread and have noticed there seems to be a question debated here, about the speed capabilities of the carrier.

We can do a quick search and see that the apparent top speed is 30 knots. However, we can also search a little deeper and find reference that those stats are sorely underestimated.

The following is and excerpt from a debate about this same question, from another site. I will post a lot of it here to make it easier on you guys, instead of simply clicking the sources link at the bottom of this post.

Here is some content from the debate:



The "conventional" carriers (CV, as opposed to CVN) are capable of pacing almost any non-nuclear ship, though their acceleration is glacial. The top speed listed in most sources is a little understated, but also sensitive information.

As for the nuclear carriers, let's just say that they're ridiculously fast and capable of kicking up an ungawdly roostertail. Comparing them to, say, a destroyer, is like comparing a Corvette to a Yugo; MUCH larger, and capable of leaving you at the light wondering how the heck it moved so fast or picked up speed that quickly...






The practical speed limit in knots for a displacement-type hull is approximately equal to the square-root of the hull length at the waterline (LWL) times 1.34

The Enterprise is the longest warship ever built. You'll find some variation among different sources, but most of them list her length overall (LOA) as 1,123 feet, whereas ALL of the Nimitz class are usually listed as 1,092 feet. The Enterprise and the Nimitz class have the same length at the waterline (LWL), 1,040 feet.

If the hulls may be considered displacement hulls, this puts the limit of both the Enterprise and Nimitz class warships at the square root of 1,040 (32.249) times 1.34= 43.2 knots.

The "threshold speed" is generally considered to occur at a speed of about 1.2 times the square root of the ship's LWL, which would mean that the Enterprise and Nimitz class ships are not likely to exceed a speed of 38.7 knots.

Naval architects have long considered the problem of achieving significantly higher ship speeds, without increasing length or decreasing beam, as the equivalent of "breaking the sound barrier" in aeronautical technology...




Due to hydrodynamics, (for the most part) the longer a ship is, the faster it can go, provding it has the powerplant to drive it. The theoretical maximum speed of any hull shape is called its HULL SPEED, and it can be closely approximated (within 5%) by the equation:

HV=1.34x(LWL)^0.5

(where LWL is the length at the waterline measured in feet, and HV is the HullSpeed measured in Knots) In English: the max hull speed is approximately 1.34 times the squareroot of the length at the waterline.

A ship with ideal lines and a maximum powerplant (such as US CVNs) can eek out as much as an additional 5% or so.

Being some of the longest ships in the world, aircraft carriers have the highest hull velocity of any ship afloat, with the exception of supertankers -- which don't have anywhere near enough HP to get them even 1/4 of the way to their Hull Velocity. In point of fact, USN Supercarriers can outrun their entire escort and most torpedoes...






I was a an engineer at kings bay in ga on a ssbn. i also worked on a cvn. i cant say much but, the public specs are way, way under stated...




I've got several friends that were on a few of the Nimitz carriers, they've all said that during their sea trials, the carriers were doing in excess of 75 knots...




HARTH technology (hydrolance.net) is now available which when designed and built as an aircraft carrier, would allow vessel speeds of over 150 mph in high-force sea-states. Further, there would be no roll, pitch, heave or sea-sickness and provides far greater safety for the crew and the landing of aircraft. Aircraft could land with matched speed or specify a 30 mph differencial making the approach to the stable deck controlled, gentle and safer. The low drag of the HARTH hulls substancially reduces fuel and power consumption...




Those suckers have 4 nuclear reactors and can outrun ANY destroyer ever built. But they try not to cave in the hull by doing so (they're extremely heavy). One ex-sailor who was on a ship escorting an early nuke carrier, who was present when they decided to test out how fast it could go to far parts of the world without damage. It passed his ship like they were tied...




> The current Nimitz Class Carriers can go 30+ knots

I have a buddy in the Navy who says they can go WAY faster than that--over 60!!!...


SOURCE
edit on 31-12-2011 by esteay812 because: tyops



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by zeeon

Originally posted by DarthMuerte

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


True story brotha! 30 knots is the unclassified speed and I can attest as well to how fast a carrier can actually travel. I have first hand seen the Nimitz leave behind her small boys during the conflict in 2003. Thank you for your service as well shipmate.


Yup she's a big a$$ bitch when she wants to be




posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:31 PM
link   
OK its getting late. I will keep this as short as I can. ANYTHING in the straits that causes upset plays into the hands that pull your strings. Who cares if the US kick ass. You are the ones that will be paying 300 + a barrel. As soon as straits become dodgy crude will rocket. This will suite the people that own you quite well dont you think.



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by esteay812
 


Hi there! That's some decent research there. I can and will say this much, that I have experienced 60mph winds (in a calm environment) across the flight deck, so that should give you an idea how fast the ship was going.

It isn't very often that Carriers travel faster then cruising speed (30 knots), because it is hard on the ship. She rattles and shakes like crazy, and they secure the flight deck because the winds are so intense across it.
But I can confirm for sure that CVN Nimitz Class Carriers can and do travel much faster then 30 knots.

ETA: Lets do a little experiment. See if you can find the data when the USS Constellation was deployed in 2003 and how long she took to get the Persian gulf. If memory serves, USS Lincoln was first to start the bombing, then they were relieved by us (USS Nimitz) then USS Constellation relieved us.
Calculate the distance between homeport (San Diego, CA) and lets say, Bahrain (a small island in the Persian Gulf). Then, calculate how long it would take to get there at 30 knots, and compare that to the time it took the USS Constellation to arrive on station in the Persian Gulf. Me thinks you'll find that she arrived a lot sooner than if she were moving at a "max speed of 30 knots."


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



posted on Dec, 31 2011 @ 08:40 PM
link   
reply to post by zeeon
 


Very true we would leave our escorts in our wake many times and that was without gagging the safties and adding JP5 to the boilers



new topics

top topics



 
58
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join